If I want to iterate through a collection, and call a function on each element in the collection, I could go with :
foreach (var obj in objColl)
{
MyFunction(obj);
}
Should I want to do this with linq, I can use either of those :
//#1
var unused = (from var obj in objColl select MyFunction(obj)).ToList();
//#2
var unused = objColl.Select(obj => MyFunction(obj)).ToList();
I know this works, but it doesn't seem right. Of course, my actual cases are more complex queries that that, but it comes down to this since I could build my IQueryable with Linq and iterate through it and call the function.
Edit:
Here is one example of what I did. (Item# are things I can't disclose)
var dummyValue = (from
Item7 in dal.GetAgencyConvertions().Where(age => age.SourceName == "Item1" && age.TargetName == "Item2")
join Item6 in dal.GetAgencyConvertions().Where(age => age.SourceName == "Item2" && age.TargetName == "Item3") on Item6.TargetValue equals Item7.SourceValue
join agency in dal.GetAgencies() on Item7.SourceValue equals agency.Agency
orderby Item7.TargetValue
select vl.ValueListItems.Add(agency.ID, Item7.TargetValue)).ToList();
Go with the simple foreach, as you are clearly wanting to perform an action on (and/or using) the objects in your collection as opposed to wishing to project/filter/group/etc. the items in the sequence. LINQ is about the latter set of operations.
Edit: In the case of your update, I would simply create a query, and then iterate over the query in the foreach to perform the action.
var query = from Item7 in dal.GetAgencyConvertions().Where(age => age.SourceName == "Item1" && age.TargetName == "Item2")
join Item6 in dal.GetAgencyConvertions().Where(age => age.SourceName == "Item2" && age.TargetName == "Item3") on Item6.TargetValue equals Item7.SourceValue
join agency in dal.GetAgencies() on Item7.SourceValue equals agency.Agency
orderby Item7.TargetValue
select new { ID = agency.ID, Value = Item7.TargetValue };
foreach (var item in query)
vl.ValueListItems.Add(item.ID, item.Value);
To be frank, you have the same loop happening in your code, you merely mask it by using the ToList() extension method. As a byproduct, you are creating a list of values that you have no intention of using, while somewhat obfuscating the true intention of the code, all to save maybe a few characters.
Typically, a query shouldn't have any side effects (i.e. it shouldn't modify the state of the data or other data in your application) which raises the question, does MyFunction modify the state of your application? If it does, then you should use a foreach loop.
How about an Each() extension method?
public static void Each<T>(this IEnumerable<T> target, Action<T> action)
{
if (target == null) return;
foreach (T obj in target)
action(obj);
}
Related
I'd like to know it is it possible to create programmatically single LINQ query (for EntityFramework 6) with N .Where() clauses, but with OR between these .Where() clauses.
Imagine IQueryable object defined like:
var query = dbContext.MyTable.Where(mt => mt.TimeStamp >= DateBegin);
What I need else is add N (unknown number) of Where clauses, but with OR condition between them.
Image list of some object:
List<MyObject> myObj =
new List<MyObject>({new MyObject {val = "a" }, new MyObject { val = "b"}}); //In real code there is more than 1 property.
then I'd like to add Where() clauses to query like:
myObj.ForEach(mo =>{
// THIS CREATES -AND- BETWEEN WHERE CLAUSES, BUT I NEED -OR-
query.Where(q=>q.MyValue == mo.val); // In real code there is more than 1 property to compare
});
I was thinking about .Union() beteween queries, but It could generate union between separated queries and it's not optimal I think.
Thanks!
Here's the solution: linq-to-entities-combining-predicates
Or course is necessary to use "latest" answer:
Copy/Paste class ParameterRebinder
Copy/Paste static class Utility
Usage:
Expression<Func<Car, bool>> theCarIsRed = c => c.Color == "Red";
Expression<Func<Car, bool>> theCarIsCheap = c => c.Price < 10.0;
Expression<Func<Car, bool>> theCarIsRedOrCheap = theCarIsRed.Or(theCarIsCheap);
var query = carQuery.Where(theCarIsRedOrCheap);
Because in my solution is N of expressions, I take first expression and then append other expressions in ForEach cycle.
var firstExpression = expressionList.First();
expressionList.Skip(1).ToList().ForEach(ex => { firstExpression = firstExpression.Or(ex); });
I was looking over some LINQ examples, and was thereby reminded they are supposed to have a "select" clause at the end.
But I have a LINQ that's working and has no "Select":
public IEnumerable<InventoryItem> Get(string ID, int packSize, int CountToFetch)
{
return inventoryItems
.Where(i => (i.Id.CompareTo(ID) == 0 && i.PackSize > packSize) || i.Id.CompareTo(ID) > 0)
.OrderBy(i => i.Id)
.ThenBy(i => i.PackSize)
.Take(CountToFetch)
.ToList();
}
Is this because:
(a) select is not really necessary?
(b) Take() is doing the "select"
(c) ToList() is doing the "select"
Truth be told, this was working before I added the "ToList()" also... so it seems LINQ is quite permissive/lax in what it allows one to get away with.
Also, in the LINQ I'm using, I think the OrderBy and ThenBy are redundant, because the SQL query used to populate inventoryItems already has an ORDER BY ID, PackSize clause. Am I right (that the .OrderBy() and .ThenBy() are unnecessary)?
Linq statements do in fact need a select clause (or other clauses, such as a group by). However, you're not using Linq syntax, you're using the Linq Enumerable extension methods, which all (for the most part) return IEnumerable<T>. Therefore, they do not need the Select operator.
var result = from item in source
where item.Value > 5
select item;
Is exactly the same as
var result = source.Where(item => item.Value > 5);
And for completeness:
var result = from item in source
where item.Value > 5
select item.Value;
Is exactly the same as
var result = source.Where(item => item.Value > 5)
.Select(item => item.Value);
Linq statements (Linq syntax statements) need a special clause at the end to signify what the result of the query should be. Without a select, group by, or other selection clause, the syntax is incomplete, and the compiler does not know how to change the expression into the appropriate extension methods (which is what Linq syntax actually gets compiled to).
As far as ToList goes, that's one of the Enumerable extension methods that does not return an IEnumerable<t>, but instead a List<T>. When you use ToList or ToArray the Enumerable is enumerated immediately and converted to a list or array. This is useful if your query is complex and you need to enumerate the results multiple times without running the query multiple times).
You only use select when you want to project your object into a different type..
if you had a list that contains an object with an ID property that was an int
var newList = items.Select(i => i.ID);
newList would be an IEnumerable<int>
NB.
A common mistake is to mix up a Select with a Where.
items.Where(i => i.ID == 1); returns an IEnumerable<item>
items.Select(i => i.ID == 1); returns an IEnumerable<bool>
as the Select projects each item into the result of the function passed in..
I am trying to access a user object in a collection with the id = to users101 and set this to another users.
Controller.MyObject.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id == "user101") = OtherUser();
Thanks in advance.
You can't do it with one LINQ expression.
Usually LINQ extensions works on enumerables, if MyObject is a collection you first have to find the required item and then overwrite it with the new object (moreover SingleOrDefault() will simply return null if condition is not satisfied).
You should write something like this (exact code depends on what MyObject is):
var item = Controller.MyObject.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id == "user101");
if (item != null)
Controller.MyObject[Controller.MyObject.IndexOf(item)] = new OtherUser();
Please note that if you do not really need the check performed by SingleOrDefault() you can simplify the code (and avoid the double search performed in SingleOrDefault() and IndexOf()).
If this is "performance critical" maybe it is better to write an ad-hoc implementation that does this task in one single pass.
Try it in two lines:
var objectWithId = Controller.MyObject.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id == "user101");
(objectWithId as WhateverTypeOfObjectOtherUserIs) = OtherUser();
Let's say I have an array, and I want to do a LINQ query against a varchar that returns any records that have an element of the array anywhere in the varchar.
Something like this would be sweet.
string[] industries = { "airline", "railroad" }
var query = from c in contacts where c.industry.LikeAnyElement(industries) select c
Any ideas?
This is actually an example I use in my "Express Yourself" presentation, for something that is hard to do in regular LINQ; As far as I know, the easiest way to do this is by writing the predicate manually. I use the example below (note it would work equally for StartsWith etc):
using (var ctx = new NorthwindDataContext())
{
ctx.Log = Console.Out;
var data = ctx.Customers.WhereTrueForAny(
s => cust => cust.CompanyName.Contains(s),
"a", "de", "s").ToArray();
}
// ...
public static class QueryableExt
{
public static IQueryable<TSource> WhereTrueForAny<TSource, TValue>(
this IQueryable<TSource> source,
Func<TValue, Expression<Func<TSource, bool>>> selector,
params TValue[] values)
{
return source.Where(BuildTrueForAny(selector, values));
}
public static Expression<Func<TSource, bool>> BuildTrueForAny<TSource, TValue>(
Func<TValue, Expression<Func<TSource, bool>>> selector,
params TValue[] values)
{
if (selector == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("selector");
if (values == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("values");
if (values.Length == 0) return x => true;
if (values.Length == 1) return selector(values[0]);
var param = Expression.Parameter(typeof(TSource), "x");
Expression body = Expression.Invoke(selector(values[0]), param);
for (int i = 1; i < values.Length; i++)
{
body = Expression.OrElse(body,
Expression.Invoke(selector(values[i]), param));
}
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TSource, bool>>(body, param);
}
}
from c in contracts
where industries.Any(i => i == c.industry)
select c;
something like that. use the any method on the collection.
IEnumerable.Contains() translates to SQL IN as in:
WHERE 'american airlines' IN ('airline', 'railroad') -- FALSE
String.Contains() which translates to SQL LIKE %...% as in:
WHERE 'american airlines' LIKE '%airline%' -- TRUE
If you want the contacts where the contact's industry is LIKE (contains) any of the given industries, you want to combine both Any() and String.Contains() into something like this:
string[] industries = { "airline", "railroad" };
var query = from c in contacts
where industries.Any(i => c.Industry.Contains(i))
select c;
However, combining both Any() and String.Contains() like this is NOT supported in LINQ to SQL. If the set of given industries is small, you can try something like:
where c.Industry.Contains("airline") ||
c.Industry.Contains("railroad") || ...
Or (although normally not recommended) if the set of contacts is small enough, you could bring them all from the DB and apply the filter with LINQ to Objects by using contacts.AsEnumerable() or contacts.ToList() as the source of the query above:
var query = from c in contacts.AsEnumerable()
where industries.Any(i => c.Industry.Contains(i))
select c;
it will work if you build up the query as follows:
var query = from c in contacts.AsEnumerable()
select c;
query = query.Where(c=> (c.Industry.Contains("airline")) || (c.Industry.Contains("railroad")));
you just need to programmatically generate the string above if the parameters airline and railroad are user inputs. This was in fact a little more complicated than I was expecting. See article - http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/predicatebuilder.aspx
Unfortunately, LIKE is not supported in LINQ to SQL as per here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb882677.aspx
To get around this, you will have to write a stored procedure which will accept the parameters you want to use in the like statement(s) and then call that from LINQ to SQL.
It should be noted that a few of the answers suggest using Contains. This won't work because it looks to see that the entire string matches the array element. What is being looked for is for the array element to be contained in the field itself, something like:
industry LIKE '%<element>%'
As Clark has mentioned in a comment, you could use a call to IndexOf on each element (which should translate to a SQL call):
string[] industries = { "airline", "railroad" }
var query =
from c in contacts
where
c.industry.IndexOf(industries[0]) != -1 ||
c.industry.IndexOf(industries[1]) != -1
If you know the length of the array and the number of elements, then you could hard-code this. If you don't, then you will have to create the Expression instance based on the array and the field you are looking at.
I ran into a scenario where LINQ to SQL acts very strangely. I would like to know if I'm doing something wrong. But I think there is a real possibility that it's a bug.
The code pasted below isn't my real code. It is a simplified version I created for this post, using the Northwind database.
A little background: I have a method that takes an IQueryable of Product and a "filter object" (which I will describe in a minute). It should run some "Where" extension methods on the IQueryable, based on the "filter object", and then return the IQueryable.
The so-called "filter object" is a System.Collections.Generic.List of an anonymous type of this structure: { column = fieldEnum, id = int }
The fieldEnum is an enum of the different columns of the Products table that I would possibly like to use for the filtering.
Instead of explaining further how my code works, it's easier if you just take a look at it. It's simple to follow.
enum filterType { supplier = 1, category }
public IQueryable<Product> getIQueryableProducts()
{
NorthwindDataClassesDataContext db = new NorthwindDataClassesDataContext();
IQueryable<Product> query = db.Products.AsQueryable();
//this section is just for the example. It creates a Generic List of an Anonymous Type
//with two objects. In real life I get the same kind of collection, but it isn't hard coded like here
var filter1 = new { column = filterType.supplier, id = 7 };
var filter2 = new { column = filterType.category, id = 3 };
var filterList = (new[] { filter1 }).ToList();
filterList.Add(filter2);
foreach(var oFilter in filterList)
{
switch (oFilter.column)
{
case filterType.supplier:
query = query.Where(p => p.SupplierID == oFilter.id);
break;
case filterType.category:
query = query.Where(p => p.CategoryID == oFilter.id);
break;
default:
break;
}
}
return query;
}
So here is an example. Let's say the List contains two items of this anonymous type, { column = fieldEnum.Supplier, id = 7 } and { column = fieldEnum.Category, id = 3}.
After running the code above, the underlying SQL query of the IQueryable object should contain:
WHERE SupplierID = 7 AND CategoryID = 3
But in reality, after the code runs the SQL that gets executed is
WHERE SupplierID = 3 AND CategoryID = 3
I tried defining query as a property and setting a breakpoint on the setter, thinking I could catch what's changing it when it shouldn't be. But everything was supposedly fine. So instead I just checked the underlying SQL after every command. I realized that the first Where runs fine, and query stays fine (meaning SupplierID = 7) until right after the foreach loop runs the second time. Right after oFilter becomes the second anonymous type item, and not the first, the 'query' SQL changes to Supplier = 3. So what must be happening here under-the-hood is that instead of just remembering that Supplier should equal 7, LINQ to SQL remembers that Supplier should equal oFilter.id. But oFilter is a name of a single item of a foreach loop, and it means something different after it iterates.
I have only glanced at your question, but I am 90% sure that you should read the first section of On lambdas, capture, and mutability (which includes links to 5 similar SO questions) and all will become clear.
The basic gist of it is that the variable oFilter in your example has been captured in the closure by reference and not by value. That means that once the loop finishes iterating, the variable's reference is to the last one, so the value as evaluated at lambda execution time is the final one as well.
The cure is to insert a new variable inside the foreach loop whose scope is only that iteration rather than the whole loop:
foreach(var oFilter in filterList)
{
var filter = oFilter; // add this
switch (oFilter.column) // this doesn't have to change, but can for consistency
{
case filterType.supplier:
query = query.Where(p => p.SupplierID == filter.id); // use `filter` here
break;
Now each closure is over a different filter variable that is declared anew inside of each loop, and your code will run as expected.
Working as designed. The issue you are confronting is the clash between lexical closure and mutable variables.
What you probably want to do is
foreach(var oFilter in filterList)
{
var o = oFilter;
switch (o.column)
{
case filterType.supplier:
query = query.Where(p => p.SupplierID == o.id);
break;
case filterType.category:
query = query.Where(p => p.CategoryID == o.id);
break;
default:
break;
}
}
When compiled to IL, the variable oFilter is declared once and used multiply. What you need is a variable declared separately for each use of that variable within a closure, which is what o is now there for.
While you're at it, get rid of that bastardized Hungarian notation :P.
I think this is the clearest explanation I've ever seen: http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/11/12/closing-over-the-loop-variable-considered-harmful.aspx:
Basically, the problem arises because we specify that the foreach loop is a syntactic sugar for
{
IEnumerator<int> e = ((IEnumerable<int>)values).GetEnumerator();
try
{
int m; // OUTSIDE THE ACTUAL LOOP
while(e.MoveNext())
{
m = (int)(int)e.Current;
funcs.Add(()=>m);
}
}
finally
{
if (e != null) ((IDisposable)e).Dispose();
}
}
If we specified that the expansion was
try
{
while(e.MoveNext())
{
int m; // INSIDE
m = (int)(int)e.Current;
funcs.Add(()=>m);
}
then the code would behave as expected.
The problem is that you're not appending to the query, you're replacing it each time through the foreach statement.
You want something like the PredicateBuilder - http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/predicatebuilder.aspx