(This is a follow on from a comment on an answer to this question)
18 months after I posted it, someone spotted a bug in one of my Linq examples, where I use an IDisposable half way through a method chain, which never gets disposed.
I attempted to write an extension method to handle this:
public static IEnumerable<R> Using<T, R>(
this IEnumerable<T> list, Func<T, R> selector) where R : IDisposable
{
foreach(var item in list)
using(var disposable = selector(item))
yield return disposable;
}
var q = Enumerable.Range(0, 10)
.Using(i => new Disposable(i))
.Select(d => d.Id);
After seeing Marc's answer to the question I referenced above, I wondered if I could overload the Select extension method directly, but if I do (by renaming Using to Select), the compiler squeals about Select(d => d.Id), because There is no implicit conversion from 'string' to 'System.IDisposable'.
Here's a test class...
public class Disposable : IDisposable
{
private string _id;
private bool _disposed = false;
public Disposable(int id)
{
Id = id.ToString();
Console.WriteLine("Creating " + Id);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine("Disposing " + Id);
_disposed = true;
}
public string Id
{
get
{
if(_disposed) throw new Exception("Call to disposed object!");
return _id;
}
set { _id = value; }
}
}
Like so? I haven't really changed much here, except the constructor usage...
static void Main()
{
var q = from d in System.Linq.Enumerable.Range(0, 10)
select new Disposable(d);
// alternatively:
// var q = System.Linq.Enumerable.Range(0, 10)
// .Select(d => new Disposable(d));
foreach(var item in q)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hi");
}
}
public static IEnumerable<R> Select<T, R>(
this IEnumerable<T> list, Func<T, R> selector) where R : IDisposable
{
foreach (var item in list)
using (var disposable = selector(item))
yield return disposable;
}
However! The thing to watch here is that we don't introduce any conflicting LINQ operations.
Related
Here is the enum extension method to get its description attribute.
public static string GetDescription(this Enum enumeration)
{
if (enumeration == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException();
var value = enumeration.ToString();
var type = enumeration.GetType();
var descriptionAttribute =
(DescriptionAttribute[]) type.GetField(value).GetCustomAttributes(typeof (DescriptionAttribute), false);
return descriptionAttribute.Length > 0 ? descriptionAttribute[0].Description : value;
}
Here is the source object:
public class Account {
public int AccountId {get;set;}
public int AccountStatusId {get;set;}
}
Here is the enum:
public enum AccountStatus {
[Description("N/A")]
None,
[Description("OPEN")]
Open,
[Description("CLOSED")]
Closed,
[Description("BAD CREDIT")
Problem
}
Here is the destination object:
public class GetAccountResponse {
public int AccountId {get;set;}
public string Status {get;set;}
}
Here is my attempt to map (using the latest non-static automapper version). Remember this is during an EF queryable projection.
_config = new MapperConfiguration(cfg => cfg.CreateMap<Account, GetAccountsResponse>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Status,
opts => opts.MapFrom(src => ((AccountStatus) src.AccountStatusId).GetDescription())));
Here is the projection where query is an IQueryable<Account>:
query.ProjectToList<GetAccountResponse>(_config);
This is the exception I get:
Can't resolve this to Queryable Expression
If you check out the signature of the MapFrom method, you'll notice that one of the overloads takes a parameter of type Expression<Func<TSource, TMember>>.
This suggests that you could write a method which builds an expression tree from ternary expressions that can convert any possible value of your enum to its appropriate string. AutoMapper would then convert this into the appropriate SQL expression via LINQ.
Here's an example which just uses the Enum names themselves: you should be able to adapt it straightforwardly to use your Descriptions:
public static class EnumerableExpressionHelper
{
public static Expression<Func<TSource, String>> CreateEnumToStringExpression<TSource, TMember>(
Expression<Func<TSource, TMember>> memberAccess, string defaultValue = "")
{
var type = typeof(TMember);
if (!type.IsEnum)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("TMember must be an Enum type");
}
var enumNames = Enum.GetNames(type);
var enumValues = (TMember[])Enum.GetValues(type);
var inner = (Expression)Expression.Constant(defaultValue);
var parameter = memberAccess.Parameters[0];
for (int i = 0; i < enumValues.Length; i++)
{
inner = Expression.Condition(
Expression.Equal(memberAccess.Body, Expression.Constant(enumValues[i])),
Expression.Constant(enumNames[i]),
inner);
}
var expression = Expression.Lambda<Func<TSource,String>>(inner, parameter);
return expression;
}
}
You would use it as follows:
CreateMap<Entry, EntryListItem>()
.ForMember(e => e.ReviewStatus,
c => c.MapFrom(EnumerableExpressionHelper.CreateEnumToStringExpression((Entry e) => e.ReviewStatus)))
I have a type which has a default sort order as it implements IComparable<T> and IComparable. I'm not getting the results I expect from LINQ , basically it looks as if the IComparable<T> which the type implements is not being applied.
I thought I would get the result I want with an expression in the form:
var result = MyEnumerable<T>.OrderBy(r => r);
where T itself implements IComparable<T>. It's not happening.
I can see related questions where specific IComparable<T> classes are specified for the sort, but I can't find one which uses the default IComparable<T> implemented by T itself.
My syntax is clearly incorrect. What is the correct syntax please?
Thanks in advance.
OrderBy uses the default comparer Comparer<T>.Default which in turn will default to use the IComparable<T> implementation for T, or the non-generic IComparable if the former does not exist.
This code works:
public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var list = new List<Stuff>
{
new Stuff("one"),
new Stuff("two"),
new Stuff("three"),
new Stuff("four")
};
var sorted = list.OrderBy(x => x);
foreach (var stuff in sorted)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(stuff.Name);
}
}
}
public class Stuff : IComparable<Stuff>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Stuff(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public int CompareTo(Stuff other)
{
return String.CompareOrdinal(Name, other.Name);
}
}
public static class GenericSorter
{
public static IOrderedEnumerable<T> Sort<T>(IEnumerable<T> toSort, Dictionary<string, SortingOrder> sortOptions)
{
IOrderedEnumerable<T> orderedList = null;
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, SortingOrder> entry in sortOptions)
{
if (orderedList != null)
{
if (entry.Value == SortingOrder.Ascending)
{
orderedList = orderedList.ApplyOrder<T>(entry.Key, "ThenBy");
}
else
{
orderedList = orderedList.ApplyOrder<T>(entry.Key, "ThenByDescending");
}
}
else
{
if (entry.Value == SortingOrder.Ascending)
{
orderedList = toSort.ApplyOrder<T>(entry.Key, "OrderBy");
}
else
{
orderedList = toSort.ApplyOrder<T>(entry.Key, "OrderByDescending");
}
}
}
return orderedList;
}
private static IOrderedEnumerable<T> ApplyOrder<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, string property, string methodName)
{
ParameterExpression param = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "x");
Expression expr = param;
foreach (string prop in property.Split('.'))
{
expr = Expression.PropertyOrField(expr, prop);
}
Type delegateType = typeof(Func<,>).MakeGenericType(typeof(T), expr.Type);
LambdaExpression lambda = Expression.Lambda(delegateType, expr, param);
MethodInfo mi = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethods().Single(
method => method.Name == methodName
&& method.IsGenericMethodDefinition
&& method.GetGenericArguments().Length == 2
&& method.GetParameters().Length == 2)
.MakeGenericMethod(typeof(T), expr.Type);
return (IOrderedEnumerable<T>)mi.Invoke(null, new object[] { source, lambda.Compile() });
}
}
I'd like to split a sequence in C# to a sequence of sequences using LINQ. I've done some investigation, and the closest SO article I've found that is slightly related is this.
However, this question only asks how to partition the original sequence based upon a constant value. I would like to partition my sequence based on an operation.
Specifically, I have a list of objects which contain a decimal property.
public class ExampleClass
{
public decimal TheValue { get; set; }
}
Let's say I have a sequence of ExampleClass, and the corresponding sequence of values of TheValue is:
{0,1,2,3,1,1,4,6,7,0,1,0,2,3,5,7,6,5,4,3,2,1}
I'd like to partition the original sequence into an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<ExampleClass>> with values of TheValue resembling:
{{0,1,2,3}, {1,1,4,6,7}, {0,1}, {0,2,3,5,7}, {6,5,4,3,2,1}}
I'm just lost on how this would be implemented. SO, can you help?
I have a seriously ugly solution right now, but have a "feeling" that LINQ will increase the elegance of my code.
Okay, I think we can do this...
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<TElement>>
PartitionMontonically<TElement, TKey>
(this IEnumerable<TElement> source,
Func<TElement, TKey> selector)
{
// TODO: Argument validation and custom comparisons
Comparer<TKey> keyComparer = Comparer<TKey>.Default;
using (var iterator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!iterator.MoveNext())
{
yield break;
}
TKey currentKey = selector(iterator.Current);
List<TElement> currentList = new List<TElement> { iterator.Current };
int sign = 0;
while (iterator.MoveNext())
{
TElement element = iterator.Current;
TKey key = selector(element);
int nextSign = Math.Sign(keyComparer.Compare(currentKey, key));
// Haven't decided a direction yet
if (sign == 0)
{
sign = nextSign;
currentList.Add(element);
}
// Same direction or no change
else if (sign == nextSign || nextSign == 0)
{
currentList.Add(element);
}
else // Change in direction: yield current list and start a new one
{
yield return currentList;
currentList = new List<TElement> { element };
sign = 0;
}
currentKey = key;
}
yield return currentList;
}
}
Completely untested, but I think it might work...
alternatively with linq operators and some abuse of .net closures by reference.
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Monotonic<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
var comparator = Comparer<T>.Default;
int i = 0;
T last = default(T);
return enumerable.GroupBy((value) => { i = comparator.Compare(value, last) > 0 ? i : i+1; last = value; return i; }).Select((group) => group.Select((_) => _));
}
Taken from some random utility code for partitioning IEnumerable's into a makeshift table for logging. If I recall properly, the odd ending Select is to prevent ambiguity when the input is an enumeration of strings.
Here's a custom LINQ operator which splits a sequence according to just about any criteria. Its parameters are:
xs: the input element sequence.
func: a function which accepts the "current" input element and a state object, and returns as a tuple:
a bool stating whether the input sequence should be split before the "current" element; and
a state object which will be passed to the next invocation of func.
initialState: the state object that gets passed to func on its first invocation.
Here it is, along with a helper class (required because yield return apparently cannot be nested):
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Split<T, TState>(
this IEnumerable<T> xs,
Func<T, TState, Tuple<bool, TState>> func,
TState initialState)
{
using (var splitter = new Splitter<T, TState>(xs, func, initialState))
{
while (splitter.HasNext)
{
yield return splitter.GetNext();
}
}
}
internal sealed class Splitter<T, TState> : IDisposable
{
public Splitter(IEnumerable<T> xs,
Func<T, TState, Tuple<bool, TState>> func,
TState initialState)
{
this.xs = xs.GetEnumerator();
this.func = func;
this.state = initialState;
this.hasNext = this.xs.MoveNext();
}
private readonly IEnumerator<T> xs;
private readonly Func<T, TState, Tuple<bool, TState>> func;
private bool hasNext;
private TState state;
public bool HasNext { get { return hasNext; } }
public IEnumerable<T> GetNext()
{
while (hasNext)
{
Tuple<bool, TState> decision = func(xs.Current, state);
state = decision.Item2;
if (decision.Item1) yield break;
yield return xs.Current;
hasNext = xs.MoveNext();
}
}
public void Dispose() { xs.Dispose(); }
}
Note: Here are some of the design decisions that went into the Split method:
It should make only a single pass over the sequence.
State is made explicit so that it's possible to keep side effects out of func.
I was looking for a Linq RemoveFirst(Predicate<T> match) but could only find RemoveAll.
I know I can write my own extension method but was wondering if there already exists an equivalent function with a different name, or an easy way to achieve the same result.
Like this:
list.RemoveAt(list.FindIndex(x => thingy));
If no item is found, an exception will be thrown.
Note that this has nothing to do with LINQ and can only be done with List<T>.
This code does not actually "remove" the element from the sequence since, as #SLaks points out linq sequences are readonly, but it does skip the first occurrence of the element that meets the criteria. It is not particularly efficient as each list operation is going to iterate over the list. It is reasonably expressive of what you are trying to accomplish. Depending on how many items you expect to have in your list, this might be reasonable for you.
IEnumerable<int> x = Enumerable.Range(0, 20);
var y = x.TakeWhile(xx => xx < 10).Concat(x.SkipWhile(xx => xx < 10).Skip(1));
//Will write 0 1 2 ... 19, skipping 10
foreach(int a in y)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(a);
}
Since no one else has provided one, here's my extension method/enumerable that implements RemoveFirst(Predicate match). The trick is basically that you need to define your own IEnumerable to track the state properly--I couldn't find an easy way around that.
You can try it out in a .NET Fiddle here.
public static IEnumerable<T> RemoveFirst<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
return new RemoveFirstEnumerable<T>(list, predicate);
}
public static IEnumerable<T> RemoveFirst<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, T item)
{
return RemoveFirst(list, x => Object.Equals(x, item));
}
private class RemoveFirstEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
IEnumerable<T> m_Source;
Func<T, bool> m_Predicate;
public RemoveFirstEnumerable(IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
m_Source = source;
m_Predicate = predicate;
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return new RemoveFirstEnumerator(m_Source, m_Predicate);
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return new RemoveFirstEnumerator(m_Source, m_Predicate);
}
private class RemoveFirstEnumerator : IEnumerator<T>
{
IEnumerator<T> m_Enumerator;
Func<T, bool> m_Predicate;
bool m_RemovedOnce = false;
public RemoveFirstEnumerator(IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
m_Enumerator = source.Where(WherePredicate).GetEnumerator();
m_Predicate = predicate;
}
bool WherePredicate(T current)
{
// terse version:
return m_RemovedOnce || !(m_RemovedOnce = m_Predicate(current));
// Long version
//if (m_RemovedOnce)
//{
// return true;
//}
//else
//{
// m_RemovedOnce = Object.Equals(x, item);
// return !m_RemovedOnce;
//}
}
public T Current
{
get { return m_Enumerator.Current; }
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
return m_Enumerator.MoveNext();
}
public void Reset()
{
m_Enumerator.Reset();
}
public void Dispose()
{
m_Enumerator.Dispose();
}
object IEnumerator.Current
{
get { return m_Enumerator.Current; }
}
}
}
Indeed the classic List has a RemoveAll(match) but not a RemoveFirst(match). An extension method could be
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static void RemoveFirst<T>(this List<T> list, Predicate<T> match)
{
list.RemoveAt(list.FindIndex(match));
}
}
Let's say, I have an instance of IQueryable. How can I found out by which parameters it was ordered?
Here is how OrderBy() method looks like (as a reference):
public static IOrderedQueryable<T> OrderBy<T, TKey>(
this IQueryable<T> source, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> keySelector)
{
return (IOrderedQueryable<T>)source.Provider.CreateQuery<T>(
Expression.Call(null,
((MethodInfo)MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod()).MakeGenericMethod(
new Type[] { typeof(T), typeof(TKey) }
),
new Expression[] { source.Expression, Expression.Quote(keySelector) }
)
);
}
A hint from Matt Warren:
All queryables (even IOrderedQueryable's) have expression trees underlying them that encode the activity they represent. You should find using the IQueryable.Expression property a method-call expression node representing a call to the Queryable.OrderBy method with the actual arguments listed. You can decode from the keySelector argument the expression used for ordering. Take a look at the IOrderedQueryable object instance in the debugger to see what I mean.
This isn't pretty, but it seems to do the job:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
using System.Windows.Forms;
public class Test
{
public int A;
public string B { get; set; }
public DateTime C { get; set; }
public float D;
}
public class QueryOrderItem
{
public QueryOrderItem(Expression expression, bool ascending)
{
this.Expression = expression;
this.Ascending = ascending;
}
public Expression Expression { get; private set; }
public bool Ascending { get; private set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return (Ascending ? "asc: " : "desc: ") + Expression;
}
}
static class Program
{
public static List<QueryOrderItem> GetQueryOrder(Expression expression)
{
var members = new List<QueryOrderItem>(); // queue for easy FILO
GetQueryOrder(expression, members, 0);
return members;
}
static void GetQueryOrder(Expression expr, IList<QueryOrderItem> members, int insertPoint)
{
if (expr == null) return;
switch (expr.NodeType)
{
case ExpressionType.Call:
var mce = (MethodCallExpression)expr;
if (mce.Arguments.Count > 1)
{ // OrderBy etc is expressed in arg1
switch (mce.Method.Name)
{ // note OrderBy[Descending] shifts the insertPoint, but ThenBy[Descending] doesn't
case "OrderBy": // could possibly check MemberInfo
members.Insert(insertPoint, new QueryOrderItem(mce.Arguments[1], true));
insertPoint = members.Count; // swaps order to enforce stable sort
break;
case "OrderByDescending":
members.Insert(insertPoint, new QueryOrderItem(mce.Arguments[1], false));
insertPoint = members.Count;
break;
case "ThenBy":
members.Insert(insertPoint, new QueryOrderItem(mce.Arguments[1], true));
break;
case "ThenByDescending":
members.Insert(insertPoint, new QueryOrderItem(mce.Arguments[1], false));
break;
}
}
if (mce.Arguments.Count > 0)
{ // chained on arg0
GetQueryOrder(mce.Arguments[0], members, insertPoint);
}
break;
}
}
static void Main()
{
var data = new[] {
new Test { A = 1, B = "abc", C = DateTime.Now, D = 12.3F},
new Test { A = 2, B = "abc", C = DateTime.Today, D = 12.3F},
new Test { A = 1, B = "def", C = DateTime.Today, D = 10.1F}
}.AsQueryable();
var ordered = (from item in data
orderby item.D descending
orderby item.C
orderby item.A descending, item.B
select item).Take(20);
// note: under the "stable sort" rules, this should actually be sorted
// as {-A, B, C, -D}, since the last order by {-A,B} preserves (in the case of
// a match) the preceding sort {C}, which in turn preserves (for matches) {D}
var members = GetQueryOrder(ordered.Expression);
foreach (var item in members)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
// used to investigate the tree
TypeDescriptor.AddAttributes(typeof(Expression), new[] {
new TypeConverterAttribute(typeof(ExpandableObjectConverter)) });
Application.Run(new Form
{
Controls = {
new PropertyGrid { Dock = DockStyle.Fill, SelectedObject = ordered.Expression }
}
});
}
}