All,
I've got the following code, and looking into ways to improve its readibility (and remove the null check) by using Linq.
var activePlan = CurrentPlans.First();
var activeObjectives = activePlan != null ? activePlan.Objectives : null;
The closest I get is the following:
var activeObjectives = CurrentPlans.Take(1).Select(x => x.Objectives);
which gives me a collection of x.Objectives instead of Objectives.
Any ideas?
I'd write if like this:
var activeObjectives = CurrentPlans.Select(x => x.Objectives).FirstOrDefault();
This way, it's easier to work out the intention by the use of methods. Take the first set of objectives, otherwise the default (null assuming Objectives refers to a reference type). Using SelectMany() for this case isn't the best choice IMO.
oh got it:
var activeObjectives = CurrentPlans.Take(1).SelectMany(x => x.Objectives)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.linq.enumerable.selectmany.aspx
Related
I am new to linq so please excuse me if I am asking a very basic question:
paymentReceiptViewModel.EntityName = payment.CommitmentPayments.First().Commitment.Entity.GetEntityName();
paymentReceiptViewModel.HofItsId = payment.CommitmentPayments.First().Commitment.Entity.ResponsiblePerson.ItsId;
paymentReceiptViewModel.LocalId = payment.CommitmentPayments.First().Commitment.Entity.LocalEntityId;
paymentReceiptViewModel.EntityAddress = payment.CommitmentPayments.First().Commitment.Entity.Address.ToString();
This code is too repetitive and I am sure there is a better way of writing this.
Thanks in advance for looking this up.
Instead of executing query at each line, get commitment entity once:
var commitment = payment.CommitmentPayments.First().Commitment.Entity;
paymentReceiptViewModel.EntityName = commitment.GetEntityName();
paymentReceiptViewModel.HofItsId = commitment.ResponsiblePerson.ItsId;
paymentReceiptViewModel.LocalId = commitment.LocalEntityId;
paymentReceiptViewModel.EntityAddress = commitment.Address.ToString();
It depends a bit on what you are selecting to, you cannot select from one entity into another in Linq to Entities. If you are using LINQ to SQL and creating the paymentReceiptModel, you can do this.
var paymentReceiptModel = payment.CommitmentPayments.select(x=>new{
EntityName = x.Commitment.Entity.GetEntityName(),
HofItsId = x.Commitment.Entity.ResponsiblePerson.ItsId,
LocalId = x.Commitments.Entity.LocalEntityId,
EntityAddress = x.Commitment.Entity.Address
}).FirstOrDefault();
If you are using an already instantiated paymentReceiptModel and just need to assign properties then you are better looking to the solution by lazyberezovsky.
To get around the limitation in Linq to Entities, if that is what you are using, you could do this
var result = payment.CommitmentPayments.select(x=>x);
var paymentReceiptModel= result.select(x=>new
{
EntityName = x.Commitment.Entity.GetEntityName(),
HofItsId = x.Commitment.Entity.ResponsiblePerson.ItsId,
LocalId = x.Commitments.Entity.LocalEntityId,
EntityAddress = x.Commitment.Entity.Address
}).FirstOrDefault();
This essentially, makes the majority of your query Linq to Objects, only the first line is Linq to Entities
I m trying to do something that look very simple but I hit massive difficulties when I want to make that more dynamic.
Expression<Func<TableServiceEntity, bool>> predicate = (e) => e.PartitionKey == "model" && (e.RowKey == "home" || e.RowKey == "shared");
context.CreateQuery<TableServiceEntity>(tableName).Where(predicate);
I would like to pass an array of rowKey instead of having to hard code the predicate.
When I try to build an expression tree I receive a not supported exception I think it doesn't support invoking as part of the expression tree.
Does someone know how to build and expression tree exactly as the predicate to avoid the not supported exception?
Thank you by advance
So, you can build the query dynamically by using something like this (taken from PhluffyFotos sample):
Expression<Func<PhotoTagRow, bool>> search = null;
foreach (var tag in tags)
{
var id = tag.Trim().ToLowerInvariant();
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(id))
{
continue;
}
Expression<Func<PhotoTagRow, bool>> addendum = t => t.PartitionKey == id;
if (search == null)
{
search = addendum;
}
else
{
search = Expression.Lambda<Func<PhotoTagRow, bool>>(Expression.OrElse(search.Body, addendum.Body), search.Parameters);
}
}
Now, once you have 'search' you can just pass that as the predicate in your Where clause.
However, I want to convince you not to do this. I am answering your question, but telling you that it is a bad idea to do a multiple '|' OR clause in Table storage. The reason is that today at least, these queries cannot be optimized and they cause a full table scan. The performance will be horrendous with any non-trivial amount of data. Furthermore, if you build your predicates dynamically like this you run the risk of blowing the URL limit (keep that in mind).
This code in PhluffyFotos shows how, but it is actually a bad practice (I know, I wrote it). It really should be optimized to run each OR clause separately in parallel. That is how you really should do it. AND clauses are ok, but OR clauses should be parallelized (use PLINQ or TPL) and you should aggregate the results. It will be much faster.
HTH.
I believe what HTH said about this kind of query doing a full table scan is incorrect from the documentation I have read. Azure will perform a PARTITION scan rather than a TABLE scan which is a big difference in performance.
Here is my solution please read also the answer from HTH who pointed out that this is not a best practice.
var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(TableServiceEntity), "e");
var getPartitionKey = typeof(TableServiceEntity).GetProperty("PartitionKey").GetGetMethod();
var getRowKey = typeof(TableServiceEntity).GetProperty("RowKey").GetGetMethod();
var getPartition = Expression.Property(parameter, getPartitionKey);
var getRow = Expression.Property(parameter, getRowKey);
var constPartition = Expression.Constant("model", typeof(string));
var constRow1 = Expression.Constant("home", typeof(string));
var constRow2 = Expression.Constant("shared", typeof(string));
var equalPartition = Expression.Equal(getPartition, constPartition);
var equalRow1 = Expression.Equal(getRow, constRow1);
var equalRow2 = Expression.Equal(getRow, constRow2);
var and = Expression.AndAlso(equalPartition, Expression.OrElse(equalRow1, equalRow2));
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TableServiceEntity, bool>>(and, parameter);
I have a dictionary of type
Dictionary<DateTime,double> dictionary
How can I retrive a minimum value and key coresponding to this value from this dictionary using linq ?
var min = dictionary.OrderBy(kvp => kvp.Value).First();
var minKey = min.Key;
var minValue = min.Value;
This is not very efficient though; you might want to consider MoreLinq's MinBy extension method.
If you are performing this query very often, you might want to consider a different data-structure.
Aggregate
var minPair = dictionary.Aggregate((p1, p2) => (p1.Value < p2.Value) ? p1 : p2);
Using the mighty Aggregate method.
I know that MinBy is cleaner in this case, but with Aggregate you have more power and its built-in. ;)
Dictionary<DateTime, double> dictionary;
//...
double min = dictionary.Min(x => x.Value);
var minMatchingKVPs = dictionary.Where(x => x.Value == min);
You could combine it of course if you really felt like doing it on one line, but I think the above is easier to read.
var minMatchingKVPs = dictionary.Where(x => x.Value == dictionary.Min(y => y.Value));
You can't easily do this efficiently in normal LINQ - you can get the minimal value easily, but finding the key requires another scan through. If you can afford that, use Jess's answer.
However, you might want to have a look at MinBy in MoreLINQ which would let you write:
var pair = dictionary.MinBy(x => x.Value);
You'd then have the pair with both the key and the value in, after just a single scan.
EDIT: As Nappy says, MinBy is also in System.Interactive in Reactive Extensions.
I'm trying to use an already existing Expression building class that I made when trying to do a select clause, but I'm not sure how to attach the expression to the expression tree for the Select, I tried doing the following:
var catalogs = matchingCatalogs.Select(c => new
{
c.CatalogID,
Name = EntitiesExpressionHelper.MakeTranslationExpression<Catalog>("Name", ApplicationContext.Instance.CurrentLanguageID).Compile().Invoke(c),
CategoryName = EntitiesExpressionHelper.MakeTranslationExpression<Category>("Name", ApplicationContext.Instance.CurrentLanguageID).Compile().Invoke(c.Category),
c.CategoryID,
c.StartDateUTC,
c.EndDateUTC
});
But I obviously get the error stating that the Entity Framework can't map Invoke to a SQL method. Is there a way to work around this?
FYI, EntitiesExpressionHelper.MakeTranslationExpression<T>(string name, int languageID) is equivalent to:
x => x.Translations.Count(t => t.LanguageID == languageID) == 0 ? x.Translations.Count() > 0 ? x.Translations.FirstOrDefault().Name : "" : x.Translations.FirstOrDefault(t => t.LanguageID == languageID).Name
EDIT: I realize that I need to use an ExpressionVisitor to accomplish this, but I'm not sure how to use an ExpressionVisitor to alter the MemberInitExpression, so if anyone knows how to accomplish this, let me know.
You need to capture the expressions in vars. You won't be able to use anonymous types. The general idea is that this works:
Expression<Func<Foo, Bar>> exp = GenExpression();
var q = matchingCatalogs.Select(exp);
But this will not:
var q = matchingCatalogs.Select(GenExpression());
The first happily passes the result of GenExpression to L2E. The second tries to pass GenExpression itself to L2E, rather than the result.
So you need a reference to a var of the same type as the expression. Those can't be implicitly typed, so you'll need a real type for your result type.
I have an issue using the Dynamic Expression API. I cannot seem to compare a DataTable field against DBNull.Value. The API is supposed to be able to "support static field or static property access. Any public field or property can be accessed.". However given the following query:
var whatever = table1.AsEnumerable()
.Join(table2.AsEnumerable(),
(x) => x.Field<int>("Table1_ID"),
(y) => y.Field<int>("Table2_ID"),
(x, y) => new { x, y})
.AsQueryable()
.Where("x[\"NullableIntColumnName\"] == DBNull.Value");
I end up getting the error: "No property or field 'DBNull' exists in type '<>f__AnonymousType0`2'"
Anyone have ideas on how to get around this? I can't use Submission.Field("NullableIntColumnName") in the string passed to the Where method either, btw, or else I would be able to compare against null instead of DBNull.Value.
Well, I finally got it. cptScarlet almost had it.
var values = new object[] { DBNull.Value };
...
.Where("x[\"NullableIntColumnName\"] == #0", values);
or
.Where("x[\"NullableIntColumnName\"] == #0", DBNull.Value);
What happens when you replace your current .Where with something like
.Where(string.format("x[\"NullableIntColumnName\"] == {0}",DBNull.Value));
If you change x.Field<int>("Table1_ID") to x.Field<int?>("Table1_ID") then you'll get nullable integers instead of regular integers, and any DBNull values will be converted to simple C# null values. Based simply on your code snippet, I'm not even sure you'd need dynamic expressions - a simple .Where(foo => foo.x == null) ought to work.
In general, you can also try:
.Where("NullableColumnName.HasValue");
Sorry to non-answer with a USL but...
Have you looked in the source? There's not a lot of it. My guess is that DBNull is not in the list of registered root objects.
I dont have the source to hand right now, but it is also likely to tell you what any other constants one might compare against might be.
.Where(a => a.IntColName == null);
Edit:
Sorry, I did't see this dynamic requirement... Dynamic would be: (at least in Framework 4)
var intColName = "...";
.Where(string.Format("it.{0} is null", intColName));