I am trying to simplify a method that returns an IQueryable
A, B and C extend BaseEntity containing a enum that I want to compare.
context is a entity framework dbcontext.
Here is a stripped down version of the method:
return context.MyEntities.Include("A").Include("B").Include("C")
.Where(x => x.A.MyEnum == MyEnum.<value> && x.B.MyEnum == MyEnum.<value> && x.C.MyEnum == MyEnum.<value>);
I tried to do this:
Func<BaseEntity, bool> equals = x => x.MyEnum == MyEnum.<value>;
return context.MyEntities.Include("A").Include("B").Include("C")
.Where(x => equals(x.A) && equals(x.B) && equals(x.C));
It compiles but gives a runtime error. For what I understand is that Linq cannot translate the func<> to SQL?
So i searched and I found that you need to wrap the func<> in an expression<>, so Linq can compile it and translate it to SQL.
Now I have this:
Expression<Func<BaseEntity, bool>> equals = x => x.MyEnum == MyEnum.<value>;
return context.MyEntities.Include("A").Include("B").Include("C")
.Where(x => equals(x.A) && equals(x.B) && equals(x.C));
But this doesn't compile: 'Method name expected'.
Is there a way to accomplish what i'm trying to do?
The compile error is because you have to first compile the expression before being able to invoke it.
equals.Compile()(x.A)
But this defeats the purpose of using the expression to begin with.
There is nothing to be simplified in the provided code other than moving the repeated value call into a variable.
var value = MyEnum.<value>;
return context.MyEntities.Include("A").Include("B").Include("C")
.Where(x => x.A.MyEnum == value && x.B.MyEnum == value && x.C.MyEnum == value);
The attempt to simplify what was shown is not really needed.
Related
Generally, when using the conditional operator, here's the syntax:
int x = 6;
int y = x == 6 ? 5 : 9;
Nothing fancy, pretty straight forward.
Now, let's try to use this when assigning a Lambda to a Func type. Let me explain:
Func<Order, bool> predicate = id == null
? p => p.EmployeeID == null
: p => p.EmployeeID == id;
That's the same syntax, and should work? Right? For some reason that doesn't. The compiler gives this nice cryptic message:
Error 1 Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between 'lambda expression' and 'lambda expression'
I then went ahead and changed the syntax and this way it did work:
Func<Order, bool> predicate = id == null
? predicate = p => p.EmployeeID == null
: predicate = p => p.EmployeeID == id;
I'm just curious as to why it doesn't work the first way?
(Side note: I ended up not needing this code, as I found out that when comparing an int value against null, you just use object.Equals)
You can convert a lambda expression to a particular target delegate type, but in order to determine the type of the conditional expression, the compiler needs to know the type of each of the second and third operands. While they're both just "lambda expression" there's no conversion from one to the other, so the compiler can't do anything useful.
I wouldn't suggest using an assignment, however - a cast is more obvious:
Func<Order, bool> predicate = id == null
? (Func<Order, bool>) (p => p.EmployeeID == null)
: p => p.EmployeeID == id;
Note that you only need to provide it for one operand, so the compiler can perform the conversion from the other lambda expression.
The C# compiler cannot infer the type of the created lambda expression because it processes the ternary first and then the assignment. you could also do:
Func<Order, bool> predicate =
id == null ?
new Func<Order,bool>(p => p.EmployeeID == null) :
new Func<Order,bool>(p => p.EmployeeID == id);
but that just sucks,
you could also try
Func<Order, bool> predicate =
id == null ?
(Order p) => p.EmployeeID == null :
(Order p) => p.EmployeeID == id;
Let me have my own example since I had the same problem, too (with the hope that the example be helpful for others):
My Find method is generic method that gets Expression<Func<T, bool>> as predicate and gives List<T> as output.
I wanted to find countries, but I need all of them if language list was empty, and filtered list, if language list was filled.
First I used the Code as below:
var countries=
Find(languages.Any()
? (country => languages.Contains(country.Language))
: (country => true));
But exactly I get the error :there is no implicit conversion between lambda expression and lambda expression.
The problem was that, we have just two lambda expressions here, and nothing else, for example, what is country => true exactly?? We have to determine the type of at least one of lambda expressions. If just of one of the expressions be determined, then the error will be omitted. But for make the code more readable, I extracted both lambda expressions, and used the variable instead, as below:
Expression<Func<Country, bool>> getAllPredicate = country => true;
Expression<Func<Country, bool>> getCountriesByLanguagePredicate = country => languages.Contains(country.Language);
var countries= Find(languages.Any()
? getCountriesByLanguagePredicate
: getAllPredicate);
I emphasize that, if I just determined one of the expression's type, the error will be fixed.
Just an update - in C# 10, it IS now possible for the compiler to infer the 'natural type' of a lambda, provided that the input type(s) are provided, e.g.
var evenFilter = (int i) => i % 2 == 0; // evenFilter inferred as `Func<int, bool>`
This also means that 0 input Funcs and Actions can be inferred:
var zeroInputFunc = () => 44 % 2 == 0;
var myAction = () => {Console.WriteLine("Foo");};
However, this won't work:
var filter = i => i % 2 == 0; << Error: The delegate type could not be inferred
As a result, it is now possible to do what the OP originally wanted to do, provided that at least the input types are provided, e.g.
Func<int, bool> myPredicate = selectorFlag
? i => i % 2 == 0
: i => i % 2 == 1;
However, this still isn't permitted:
var myPredicate = selectorFlag
? (int i) => i % 2 == 0
: (int i) => i % 2 == 1;
Error : no implicit conversion between 'lambda expression' and 'lambda expression'
I am trying to do something similar to my previous post, except I am using extension methods instead of LINQ. I get an error telling me that && cannot be used, so how would I search within a table using two strings entered by the user?
var query = (App.DBConnection.Table<Notes>().Where(
c => c.Note.Contains(textBox1.Text) && c => c.Note.Contains(textBox2.Text))).Single();
TextBox_Results.Text = query.Note;
Remove the second lambda operator c =>
var query = App.DBConnection.Table<Notes>()
.Where(c => c.Note.Contains(textBox1.Text)
&& c.Note.Contains(textBox2.Text)))
.Single();
Apart from that, i would use FirstOrDefault instead of Single. The latter throws an InvalidOperationException if there are no elements or if there are more than one. The former just returns null if no item matches the predicate in the Where.
You don't need to declare the c variable again
Where(c => c.Note.Contains(textBox1.Text) && c => c.Note.Contains(textBox2.Text)))
should be
Where(c => c.Note.Contains(textBox1.Text) && c.Note.Contains(textBox2.Text)))
I have a filter that I use across many methods:
Expression<Func<Child, bool>> filter = child => child.Status == 1;
(actually is more complex than that)
And I have to do the following
return db.Parents.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1 &&
parent.Child.Status == 1);
where the condition is the same as in the filter above.
I want to reuse the filter in this method. But I don't know how. I tried
return db.Parents.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1 &&
filter(parent.Child));
but an Expression can't be used as a method
If you want to combine expressions and still be able to use linq-to-sql, you may want to have a look at LinqKit. It walks inside your expression and replaces all the function calls by their contents before the sql conversion.
This way you'll be able to use directly
return db.Parents
.AsExpandable()
.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1 && filter(parent.Child));
You can try this:
var compiledFilter = filter.Compile();
foreach (var parent in db.Parents.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1))
if (compiledFilter(parent.Child))
yield return parent;
It requires you to pull all of the parents, but unlike #HugoRune's solution, it doesn't require a 1:1 relation of Parent:Child.
I don't think this will be useful for your situation because of the different types involved, but just in case, here is an example of how you can combine Expressions: How do I combine LINQ expressions into one?
Edit: I had previously suggested using Compile(), but that doesn't work over LINQ-to-SQL.
Well, if there is a 1:1 relationship between parent and child
(unlikely, but the example seems to imply that) then you could do it like this:
return db.Parents
.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1)
.Select(parent => parent.Child)
.Where(filter)
.Select(child=> child.Parent);
Otherwise it will be hard.
You could do it with dynamic linq but that is probably overkill.
You could generate your expression tree manually, but that is also quite complicated. I have not tried that myself.
As a last resort you could of course always call yourQuery.AsEnumerable(), this will cause linq-to-sql to translate your query into sql up to this point and perform the rest of the work on the client-side; then you can .compile() your expression. However you lose the performance benefits of linq-to-sql (and compile() itself is quite slow; whenever it is executed, it calls the JIT-compiler):
return db.Parents
.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1)
.AsEnumerable()
.Where(parent => filter.Compile().Invoke(parent.Child))
Personally I'd just define the expression twice, once for child and once for parent.child:
Expression<Func<Child, bool>> filterChild = child => child.Status == 1;
Expression<Func<Parent, bool>> filterParent = parent => parent.Child.Status == 1;
Might not be the most elegant, but probably easier to maintain than the other solutions
Just come up with this, check if this would work for you
public interface IStatus { public int Status { get; set; } }
public class Child : IStatus { }
public class Parent : IStatus
{public Child Child { get; set; } }
Func<IStatus, bool> filter = (x) => x.Status == 1;
var list = Parents.Where(parent => filter(parent) && filter(parent.Child));
Hope this helps!
Could you just use the expression as a function instead?
Instead of:
Expression<Func<Child, bool>> filter = child => child.Status == 1;
Use that same expression as a generic function this way:
Func<Child, bool> filter = child => child.Status == 1;
Then you will be able to use the function in just the same way you were trying to use an expression:
return db.Parents.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1 &&
filter(parent.Child));
Edit: I misunderstood the question. This is a bad answer. 6+ years out, I'm still getting comments to the effect that this doesn't work. I'm not sure, from a hygiene perspective, if it would be better to just delete the answer, or add this edit and let the answer stand as an example of something that decidedly doesn't work. I'm open to advisement on that.
There's no need for external libraries or mucking around with expression trees. Instead, write your lambda functions to use query chaining and take advantage of LINQ's deferred execution.
Instead of:
Expression<Func<Child, bool>> filter = child => child.Status == 1;
Rewrite it as:
Func<IQueryable<Parent>, IQueryable<Parent>> applyFilterOnParent = query => query.Where(parent => parent.Child.Status == 1);
Func<IQueryable<Child>, IQueryable<Child>> applyFilterOnChild = query => query.Where(child => child.Status == 1);
Now, instead of:
return db.Parents.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1 &&
filter(parent.Child));
You can write:
var query = db.Parents.AsQueryable();
query = applyFilterOnParent(query);
return query.Where(parent => parent.Status == 1);
And you can re-use the applyFilter functions in other LINQ queries. This technique works well when you want to use lambda functions together with LINQ-to-SQL, because LINQ will not translate a lambda function to SQL.
I want to filter a list with FindAll
If I write:
.FindAll(
p => p.Field == Value &&
p.otherObjList.Contains(otherObj));
it's ok, but if I write
.FindAll(
p => p.Field == Value &&
p.otherObjList.Contains(
q => q.Field1 == Value1 &&
q.Field2 == Value2));
I get C# syntax error message: Unknown Method FindAll(?) of .. the otherObjList
I cannot define the otherObj exactly, because I know only the values of two fields, Field1 and Field2.
What have I done wrong? What can I do in this case?
The Contains() method for both most collection types as well as the LINQ version expects an argument of the same type as the collection, not a lambda.
It appears you are just trying to check if any item matches some condition. You should use the Any() method.
.FindAll(p => p.Field == Value
&& p.otherObjList.Any(q => q.Field1 == Value1 && q.Field2 == Value2))
the problem in short
we have a lambda expression used in the Where clause, which is not returning the "expected" result.
quick summary
in the analysisObjectRepository object, there are certain objects which also contain the parent relationship in a property named Parent. we are querying this analysisObjectRepository to return some objects.
detail
what the code below supposed to do is, returning the root, the first children (immediate children) and grandchildren of a specific object containing the ID value.
in the code below, common sense says that all the results which makes any of the 3 seperate OR conditions true should be returned as in the results.
List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects =
analysisObjectRepository
.FindAll()
.Where(x => x.ID == packageId ||
x.Parent.ID == packageId ||
x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)
.ToList();
but the above code only returns the children and grandchildren, while not returning the root objects (with a null Parent value) which make the
x.ID == packageId
condition true.
only objects which make the second
x.Parent.ID == packageId
and third
x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId
clauses are returned.
If we only write the code to return the root object with the below code, it is returned, so we are totally sure that analysisObjectRepository contains all the objects
List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects =
analysisObjectRepository
.FindAll()
.Where(x => x.ID == packageId )
.ToList();
However, when we rewrite it as a delegate, we get the expected result, returning all the expected objects.
List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects =
analysisObjectRepository
.FindAll()
.Where(delegate(AnalysisObject x)
{
return
(x.ID == packageId) ||
(x.Parent != null && x.Parent.ID == packageId) ||
(x.Parent != null &&
x.Parent.Parent != null &&
x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId); })
.ToList();
question
Are we missing something in the lambda expression? it is a really simple 3 part OR condition and we think that any object that makes any of the three conditions true should be returned. we suspected that the root object having a null Parent value might cause a problem but couldn't figure it out exactly.
any help would be great.
Your second delegate is not a rewrite of the first in anonymous delegate (rather than lambda) format. Look at your conditions.
First:
x.ID == packageId || x.Parent.ID == packageId || x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId
Second:
(x.ID == packageId) || (x.Parent != null && x.Parent.ID == packageId) ||
(x.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)
The call to the lambda would throw an exception for any x where the ID doesn't match and either the parent is null or doesn't match and the grandparent is null. Copy the null checks into the lambda and it should work correctly.
Edit after Comment to Question
If your original object is not a List<T>, then we have no way of knowing what the return type of FindAll() is, and whether or not this implements the IQueryable interface. If it does, then that likely explains the discrepancy. Because lambdas can be converted at compile time into an Expression<Func<T>> but anonymous delegates cannot, then you may be using the implementation of IQueryable when using the lambda version but LINQ-to-Objects when using the anonymous delegate version.
This would also explain why your lambda is not causing a NullReferenceException. If you were to pass that lambda expression to something that implements IEnumerable<T> but not IQueryable<T>, runtime evaluation of the lambda (which is no different from other methods, anonymous or not) would throw a NullReferenceException the first time it encountered an object where ID was not equal to the target and the parent or grandparent was null.
Added 3/16/2011 8:29AM EDT
Consider the following simple example:
IQueryable<MyObject> source = ...; // some object that implements IQueryable<MyObject>
var anonymousMethod = source.Where(delegate(MyObject o) { return o.Name == "Adam"; });
var expressionLambda = source.Where(o => o.Name == "Adam");
These two methods produce entirely different results.
The first query is the simple version. The anonymous method results in a delegate that's then passed to the IEnumerable<MyObject>.Where extension method, where the entire contents of source will be checked (manually in memory using ordinary compiled code) against your delegate. In other words, if you're familiar with iterator blocks in C#, it's something like doing this:
public IEnumerable<MyObject> MyWhere(IEnumerable<MyObject> dataSource, Func<MyObject, bool> predicate)
{
foreach(MyObject item in dataSource)
{
if(predicate(item)) yield return item;
}
}
The salient point here is that you're actually performing your filtering in memory on the client side. For example, if your source were some SQL ORM, there would be no WHERE clause in the query; the entire result set would be brought back to the client and filtered there.
The second query, which uses a lambda expression, is converted to an Expression<Func<MyObject, bool>> and uses the IQueryable<MyObject>.Where() extension method. This results in an object that is also typed as IQueryable<MyObject>. All of this works by then passing the expression to the underlying provider. This is why you aren't getting a NullReferenceException. It's entirely up to the query provider how to translate the expression (which, rather than being an actual compiled function that it can just call, is a representation of the logic of the expression using objects) into something it can use.
An easy way to see the distinction (or, at least, that there is) a distinction, would be to put a call to AsEnumerable() before your call to Where in the lambda version. This will force your code to use LINQ-to-Objects (meaning it operates on IEnumerable<T> like the anonymous delegate version, not IQueryable<T> like the lambda version currently does), and you'll get the exceptions as expected.
TL;DR Version
The long and the short of it is that your lambda expression is being translated into some kind of query against your data source, whereas the anonymous method version is evaluating the entire data source in memory. Whatever is doing the translating of your lambda into a query is not representing the logic that you're expecting, which is why it isn't producing the results you're expecting.
Try writting the lambda with the same conditions as the delegate. like this:
List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects =
analysisObjectRepository.FindAll().Where(
(x =>
(x.ID == packageId)
|| (x.Parent != null && x.Parent.ID == packageId)
|| (x.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)
).ToList();
You are checking Parent properties for null in your delegate. The same should work with lambda expressions too.
List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects = analysisObjectRepository
.FindAll()
.Where(x =>
(x.ID == packageId) ||
(x.Parent != null &&
(x.Parent.ID == packageId ||
(x.Parent.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)))
.ToList();