SingleOrDefault returns null, but what if I want to assign values to represent the object that wasn't found?
you can do something like
myStrings.DefaultIfEmpty("myDefaultString").Single()
check out here
?? operator. If the left argument is null, evaluate and return the second argument.
myCollection.SingleOrDefault() ?? new[]{new Item(...)}
This will only work with reference types (or nullables), but it would do what you're looking for very simply.
You could roll your own.
public static T SingleOrDefault<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, T defaultValue) {
if ( 1 != enumerable.Count() ) {
return defaultValue;
}
return enumerable.Single();
}
This can be a bit expensive though because Count() requires you to process the entire collection and can be fairly expensive to run. It would be better to either call Single, catch the InvalidOperationException or roll a IsSingle method
public static bool IsSingle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable) {
using ( var e = enumerable.GetEnumerator() ) {
return e.MoveNext() && !e.MoveNext();
}
}
public static T SingleOrDefault<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, T defaultValue) {
if ( !enumerable.IsSingle() ) {
if( enumerable.IsEmpty() ) {
return defaultValue;
}
throw new InvalidOperationException("More than one element");
}
return enumerable.Single();
}
You could create your own extension methods -- SingleOrNew.
public static class IEnumerableExtensions
{
public static T SingleOrNew<T>( this IEnumerable<T> enumeration, T newValue )
{
T elem = enumeration.SingleOrDefault();
if (elem == null)
{
return newValue;
}
return elem;
}
public static T SingleOrNew<T>( this IEnumerable<T> enumeration, Func<T,bool> predicate, T newValue )
{
T elem = enumeration.SingleOrDefault( predicate );
if (elem == null)
{
return newValue;
}
return elem;
}
}
Related
Trying to save selections from a CheckBoxList as a comma-separated list (string) in DB (one or more choices selected). I am using a proxy in order to save as a string because otherwise I'd have to create separate tables in the DB for a relation - the work is not worth it for this simple scenario and I was hoping that I could just convert it to a string and avoid that.
The CheckBoxList uses an enum for it's choices:
public enum Selection
{
Selection1,
Selection2,
Selection3
}
Not to be convoluted, but I use [Display(Name="Choice 1")] and an extension class to display something friendly on the UI. Not sure if I can save that string instead of just the enum, although I think if I save as enum it's not a big deal for me to "display" the friendly string on UI on some confirmation page.
This is the "Record" class that saves a string in the DB:
public virtual string MyCheckBox { get; set; }
This is the "Proxy", which is some sample I found but not directly dealing with enum, and which uses IEnumerable<string> (or should it be IEnumerable<Selection>?):
public IEnumerable<string> MyCheckBox
{
get
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(Record.MyCheckBox)) return new string[] { };
return Record
.MyCheckBox
.Split(new[] { ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries)
.Select(r => r.Trim())
.Where(r => !String.IsNullOrEmpty(r));
}
set
{
Record.MyCheckBox = value == null ? null : String.Join(",", value);
}
}
To save in the DB, I am trying to do this in a create class:
proxy.MyCheckBox = record.MyCheckBox; //getting error here
but am getting the error:
Cannot implicitly convert 'string' to System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable'
I don't know, if it's possible or better, to use Parse or ToString from the API for enum values.
I know that doing something like this will store whatever I put in the ("") into the DB, so it's just a matter of figuring out how to overcome the error (or, if there is an alternative):
proxy.MyCheckBox = new[] {"foo", "bar"};
I am not good with this stuff and have just been digging and digging to come up with a solution. Any help is much appreciated.
You can accomplish this using a custom user type. The example below uses an ISet<string> on the class and stores the values as a delimited string.
[Serializable]
public class CommaDelimitedSet : IUserType
{
const string delimiter = ",";
#region IUserType Members
public new bool Equals(object x, object y)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(x, y))
{
return true;
}
var xSet = x as ISet<string>;
var ySet = y as ISet<string>;
if (xSet == null || ySet == null)
{
return false;
}
// compare set contents
return xSet.Except(ySet).Count() == 0 && ySet.Except(xSet).Count() == 0;
}
public int GetHashCode(object x)
{
return x.GetHashCode();
}
public object NullSafeGet(IDataReader rs, string[] names, object owner)
{
var outValue = NHibernateUtil.String.NullSafeGet(rs, names[0]) as string;
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(outValue))
{
return new HashSet<string>();
}
else
{
var splitArray = outValue.Split(new[] {Delimiter}, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
return new HashSet<string>(splitArray);
}
}
public void NullSafeSet(IDbCommand cmd, object value, int index)
{
var inValue = value as ISet<string>;
object setValue = inValue == null ? null : string.Join(Delimiter, inValue);
NHibernateUtil.String.NullSafeSet(cmd, setValue, index);
}
public object DeepCopy(object value)
{
// return new ISet so that Equals can work
// see http://www.mail-archive.com/nhusers#googlegroups.com/msg11054.html
var set = value as ISet<string>;
if (set == null)
{
return null;
}
return new HashSet<string>(set);
}
public object Replace(object original, object target, object owner)
{
return original;
}
public object Assemble(object cached, object owner)
{
return DeepCopy(cached);
}
public object Disassemble(object value)
{
return DeepCopy(value);
}
public SqlType[] SqlTypes
{
get { return new[] {new SqlType(DbType.String)}; }
}
public Type ReturnedType
{
get { return typeof(ISet<string>); }
}
public bool IsMutable
{
get { return false; }
}
#endregion
}
Usage in mapping file:
Map(x => x.CheckboxValues.CustomType<CommaDelimitedSet>();
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 have this list of type IEnumerable<MyBaseType> for which I am trying to create an extra where-clause to retrieve a specific item in the list. The specific value does only exist on subtype MyFirstType and MySecondType. Not on MyBaseType.
Is it possible to create an expression kind of...
MyList.Where(b => (b is MyFirstType || (b is MySecondType)) && b.SpecificValue == message.SpecificValue);
Above is not working since b is of type MyBaseType and SpecificValue does not exist there. Also note that I do have another subtype MyThirdType that neither has the SpecificValue.
What does work doing what I want is this...
foreach (dynamic u in MyList)
{
if (u is MyFirstType || u is MySecondType)
{
if (u.SpecificValue == message.SpecificValue)
{
//Extracted code goes here
break;
}
}
}
Anyone have an idea how to create an linq expression for the above scenario?
Maybe there is a better solution but as I see it, this could work well enough... If you don't mind performance.
Well then, start by declaring an interface:
public interface IMySpecialType
{
object SpecificValue {get; set;} //you didn't specify what type this is
//all your other relevant properties which first and second types have in common
}
Then, make MyFirstType and MySecondType derive from this interface:
public class MyFirstType : MyBaseType, IMySpecialType
{
//snipet
}
public class MyFirstType : MySecondType, IMySpecialType
{
//snipet
}
Then, filter and cast:
MyList
.Where(b => (b is MyFirstType) || (b is MySecondType))
.Cast<IMySpecialType>()
.Where(b => b.SpecificValue == message.SpecificValue);
//do something
The direct translation of your code to a Linq where clause is
string messageValue = "foo";
var result = baseList.Where(item =>
{
dynamic c = item;
if(item is MyFirstType || item is MySecondType)
{
if( c.SpecificValue == messageValue)
return true;
}
return false;
});
This will require testing the type of the class though and using dynamic - so you might as well cast item to either MyFirstType or MySecondType directly.
An alternative would be using reflection to check if the property exists, using this approach you are not dependent on the actual types of your items as long as they do have the property you are interested in:
string messageValue = "foo";
var result = baseList.Where( item =>
{
var prop = item.GetType().GetProperty("SpecificValue");
if (prop != null && prop.GetValue(item, null) == messageValue)
return true;
else return false;
});
If modifying the class hierarchy is an option you can have you MyFirstType or MySecondType implement an interface that holds the property, then you can use OfType() in your Linq query:
interface ISpecific
{
string SpecificValue { get; set; }
}
class MyFirstType : MyBase, ISpecific
{
public string SpecificValue { get; set; }
}
...
string messageValue = "foo";
var result = baseList.OfType<ISpecific>()
.Where(item => item.SpecificValue == messageValue);
A far more easy way to do that would be to create an interface to mark all your classes having this property SpecificValue. Then it's a child play :
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<MyBaseType> MyList = new List<MyBaseType>();
ISpecificValue message = new MyFirstType();
MyList.OfType<ISpecificValue>().Where(b => b.SpecificValue == message.SpecificValue);
}
}
class MyBaseType { }
interface ISpecificValue { string SpecificValue { get; set; } }
class MyFirstType : MyBaseType, ISpecificValue
{
public string SpecificValue;
}
class MySecondType : MyBaseType, ISpecificValue
{
public string SpecificValue;
}
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));
}
}