We Keep Coding

List<Parent> holding Child element without losing properties C#

I have these classes
class Start
{
public List<Base> list { get; set; }
public Start()
{
list = new List<Base>();
}
}
public abstract class Base
{
public int a { get; set; }
}
class B : Base
{
public int b;
public B(int a, int b) { this.a = a; this.b = b; }
}
class C : Base
{
public int c;
public C(int a, int c) { this.a = a; this.c = c; }
}
I want list property of class Start to hold instances of class B or instances of class C (not both together, but it may hold the same type of any of B or C)
If possible, I don't want to use Generics
In C#, This is possible:
List<Object> lst = new List<Object>();
lst.Add(1);
list.Add("Text");
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", lst[0], lst[1]);
I don't understand why I can't make a similar behavior here:
Start s = new Start();
B b = new B(1, 2);
s.list.Add(b);
Console.WriteLine(s.list[0].a); //works
Console.WriteLine(s.list[0].b); //doesn't work

The difference between the two snippets is that in the first one you are not accessing any type-specific information (fields/properties/methods), i.e. something like the following will not compile too:
List<Object> lst = new List<Object>();
lst.Add(1);
list.Add("Text");
// will not compile despite string having Length property:
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", lst[0], lst[1].Length);
a is common property declared in Base class, so it is available for every child of Base, if you want to access child specific properties you need to type test/cast :
Start s = new Start();
B b = new B(1, 2);
s.list.Add(b);
Console.WriteLine(s.list[0].a); //works
if(s.list[0] is B b)
{
Console.WriteLine(b.b);
}
or make Start generic:
class Start<T> where T: Base
{
public List<T> list { get; set; }
public Start()
{
list = new List<T>();
}
}
var s = new Start<B>();
s.list.Add(new B(1, 2));
Console.WriteLine(s.list[0].b);
P.S.
Note that overriding ToString in Base, B and A will make Console.WriteLine("{0}", s.list[0]); "work":
class B : Base
{
// ...
public override string ToString() => return $"B(A: {a} B: {b})";
}
class C : Base
{
// ...
public override string ToString() => return $"C(A: {a} B: {c})";
}
Start s = new Start();
B b = new B(1, 2);
s.list.Add(b);
s.list.Add(new C(4, 2));
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", s.list[0], s.list[1]); // prints "B(A: 1 B: 2) C(A: 4 B: 2)"
So possibly you can introduce some method in Base which will allow you to use List<Base> (hard to tell without knowing actual use case).

The List<Object> example is possible because both int and string inherit from Object, which provides a ToString() method that is called implicitly on the line that writes the output. That is, no members of either the int or string types are used in that example that are specific to their own types.
You might accomplish what you need without generics by adding an interface that both B and C can implement, since both the b and c properties are compatible (they are both ints). However, this is clearly a contrived example, and I expect the real code is more complicated. In that case, generics are likely your best option.

because all Base objects dont have 'b' fields
you need to test to see if list[0] is an instance of 'B' and then cast it to a B
if (list[0] is B )
{
Console.WriteLine(((B)(list[0]).b);
}

Based on the comments underneath the question, perhaps a combination of both a non-generic interface and a generic Start class could work in this scenario.
The non-generic base interface for the generic Start class would declare a get-only List property as IReadOnlyList<Base>. IReadOnlyList is co-variant, allowing to return different List<T> instances where T is a concrete derived type from Base.
public interface IStart
{
IReadOnlyList<Base> List { get; }
}
The generic Start<TBase> class implements IStart, puts the IStart.List property in an explicit interface declaration and declares its own List property that is typed as List<TBase>.
public class Start<TBase> : IStart where TBase : Base
{
public List<TBase> List { get; set; }
IReadOnlyList<Base> IStart.List => this.List;
public Start()
{
List = new List<TBase>();
}
}
Note that both the explicit interface implementation of IStart.List and Start<TBase>'s own List property return the same List<TBase> instance.
This setup makes the following things possible (or impossible, see the code comments):
var startC = new Start<C>();
startC.List.Add(new C()); // this works, of course it works
startC.List.Add(new B()); // The compiler will NOT allow this
IStart SomeMethodProducingAStart()
{
if (someCondition)
return new Start<B>();
else
return new Start<C>();
}
void SomeMethodConsumingAStart(IStart start)
{
if (start is Start<B> startWithBs)
{
// do stuff with startWithBs...
Console.WriteLine(startWithBs.List[0].a);
Console.WriteLine(startWithBs.List[0].b);
}
else if (start is Start<C> startWithCs)
{
// do stuff with startWithCs...
Console.WriteLine(startWithCs.List[0].a);
Console.WriteLine(startWithCs.List[0].c);
}
// if you don't care about the members specific to either B or C,
// just do this
Console.WriteLine(start.List[0].a);
// since start can be any Start<T>
// the following is denied by the compiler
// simply by virtue of IStart.List being an IReadOnlyList
start.List.Add(new C()); // no can do!
}
Whether this approach fits your application scenario well is for you to determine, but it's an approach that tries to avoid granular pattern matching on individual list items and aims at simplifying working with Start instances once they have been pattern-matched/cast to the correct Start<TBase> type.

C# Merge two Lists of the same values

this is my Clients class:
public class Clients
{
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Clients(string e, string n)
{
Email = e;
Name = n;
}
I want to make a new list which contains the same clients from List A and List B .
For example:
List A - John, Jonathan, James ....
List B - Martha, Jane, Jonathan ....
Unsubscribers - Jonathan
public static List<Clients> SameClients(List<Clients> A, List<Clients> B)
{
List<Clients> Unsubscribers = new List<Clients>();
Unsubscribers = A.Intersect(B).ToList();
return Unsubscribers;
}
However for some reasons I get empty list and I have no idea what's wrong.

The problem is that when you are comparing objects Equals and Gethashcode are used to compare them. You can override these two methods and provide your own implementation based on your needs...there is already an answer below covering how to override these two methods
However, normally I prefer to keep my entities/models (or whatever you want to call them) very simple and keep comparison implementation details away from my models. In that case, you can implement an IEqualityComparer<TSource> and use an overload of Intersects that takes in an IEqualityComparer
Here's an example implementation of IEqualityComprarer based on only the Name property...
public class ClientNameEqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<Clients>
{
public bool Equals(Clients c1, Clients c2)
{
if (c2 == null && c1 == null)
return true;
else if (c1 == null | c2 == null)
return false;
else if(c1.Name == c2.Name)
return true;
else
return false;
}
public int GetHashCode(Client c)
{
return c.Name.GetHashCode();
}
}
Basically, the implementation above only cares about the Name property, if two instances of Clients have the same value for the Name property, then they are considered equal.
Now you can do the followig...
A.Intersect(B, new ClientNameEqualityComparer()).ToList();
And that will produce the results you are expecting...

Intersect uses GetHashCode and Equals by default, but you haven't overriden it, so Object.Equals is used which just compares references. Since all your client-instances are initialized with new they are separate instances even if they have equal values. That's why Intersect "thinks" that there are no common clients.
So you have several options.
implement a custom IEqualityComparer<Clients> and pass that to Intersect(or many other LINQ methods). This has the advantage that you could implement different comparer for different requirements and you don't need to modify the original class
let Clients override Equals and GetHashCode and /or
let Clients implement IEquatable<Clients>
For example(showing the last two because other answer showed already IEqualityComparer<T>):
public class Clients : IEquatable<Clients>
{
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Clients(string e, string n)
{
Email = e;
Name = n;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return obj is Clients && this.Equals((Clients)obj);
}
public bool Equals(Clients other)
{
return Email == other?.Email == true
&& Name == other?.Name == true;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked
{
int hash = 17;
hash = hash * 23 + (Email?.GetHashCode() ?? 0);
hash = hash * 23 + (Name?.GetHashCode() ?? 0);
return hash;
}
}
}
Worth reading:
Differences between IEquatable<T>, IEqualityComparer<T>, and overriding .Equals() when using LINQ on a custom object collection?

Can IEquatable compare custom objects having a list property of other custom objects?

I'd like to compare two custom class objects of the same type. The custom class being compared has a List property which is filled with items of another custom type. Is this possible by inheriting IEquatable?
I couldn't figure out how to make this work by modifying MSDN's code to compare class objects containing List properties of a custom type.
I did successfully derive from the EqualityComparer class to make a separate comparison class (code below), but I'd like to implement the comparison ability in the actual classes being compared. Here's what I have so far:
EDIT: This doesn't work after all. My apologies - I've been working on this awhile and I may have pasted incorrect example code. I'm working on trying to find my working solution...
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Test the ContractComparer.
Contract a = new Contract("Contract X", new List<Commission>() { new Commission(1), new Commission(2), new Commission(3) });
Contract b = new Contract("Contract X", new List<Commission>() { new Commission(1), new Commission(2), new Commission(3) });
ContractComparer comparer = new ContractComparer();
Console.WriteLine(comparer.Equals(a, b));
// Output returns True. I can't get this to return
// True when I inherit IEquatable in my custom classes
// if I include the list property ("Commissions") in my
// comparison.
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Contract
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<Commission> Commissions { get; set; }
public Contract(string name, List<Commission> commissions)
{
this.Name = name;
this.Commissions = commissions;
}
}
public class Commission
{
public int ID;
public Commission(int id)
{
this.ID = id;
}
}
public class ContractComparer : IEqualityComparer<Contract>
{
public bool Equals(Contract a, Contract b)
{
//Check whether the objects are the same object.
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(a, b)) return true;
//Check whether the contracts' properties are equal.
return a != null && b != null && a.Name.Equals(b.Name) && a.Commissions.Equals(b.Commissions);
}
public int GetHashCode(Contract obj)
{
int hashName = obj.Name.GetHashCode();
int hashCommissions = obj.Commissions.GetHashCode();
return hashName ^ hashCommissions;
}
}

You have to implement some kind of comparer for Commission, e.g. by implementing Commission : IEquatable<Commission>, then use it:
... && a.Commissions.SequenceEqual(b.Commissions)

C# Linq intersect/except with one part of object

I've got a class:
class ThisClass
{
private string a {get; set;}
private string b {get; set;}
}
I would like to use the Intersect and Except methods of Linq, i.e.:
private List<ThisClass> foo = new List<ThisClass>();
private List<ThisClass> bar = new List<ThisClass>();
Then I fill the two lists separately. I'd like to do, for example (and I know this isn't right, just pseudo code), the following:
foo[a].Intersect(bar[a]);
How would I do this?

If you want a list of a single property you'd like to intersect then all the other pretty LINQ solutions work just fine.
BUT! If you'd like to intersect on a whole class though and as a result have a List<ThisClass> instead of List<string> you'll have to write your own equality comparer.
foo.Intersect(bar, new YourEqualityComparer());
same with Except.
public class YourEqualityComparer: IEqualityComparer<ThisClass>
{
#region IEqualityComparer<ThisClass> Members
public bool Equals(ThisClass x, ThisClass y)
{
//no null check here, you might want to do that, or correct that to compare just one part of your object
return x.a == y.a && x.b == y.b;
}
public int GetHashCode(ThisClass obj)
{
unchecked
{
var hash = 17;
//same here, if you only want to get a hashcode on a, remove the line with b
hash = hash * 23 + obj.a.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + obj.b.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
#endregion
}

Maybe
// returns list of intersecting property 'a' values
foo.Select(f => f.a).Intersect(bar.Select(b => b.a));
BTW property a should be public.

Not sure of the speed of this compared to intersect and compare but how about:
//Intersect
var inter = foo.Where(f => bar.Any(b => b.a == f.a));
//Except - values of foo not in bar
var except = foo.Where(f => !bar.Any(b => b.a == f.a));

foo.Select(x=>x.a).Intersect(bar.Select(x=>x.a))

What exactly is the desired effect? Do you want to get a list of strings composed of all the a's in your classes, or a list of ThisClass, when two ThisClass instances are identified via unique values of a?
If it's the former, the two answers from #lazyberezovksy and #Tilak should work. If it's the latter, you'll have to override IEqualityComparer<ThisClass> or IEquatable<ThisClass> so that Intersect knows what makes two instances of ThisClass equivalent:
private class ThisClass : IEquatable<ThisClass>
{
private string a;
public bool Equals(ThisClass other)
{
return string.Equals(this.a, other.a);
}
}
then you can just call:
var intersection = foo.Intersect(bar);

I know this is old but couldn't you also just override the Equals & GetHashCode on the class itself?
class ThisClass
{
public string a {get; set;}
private string b {get; set;}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
// If you only want to compare on a
ThisClass that = (ThisClass)obj;
return string.Equals(a, that.a/* optional: not case sensitive? */);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return a.GetHashCode();
}
}

You should create IEqualityComparer. You can pass the IEqualityComparer to Intersect() method. This will help you get List(which intersect with bar) easier.
var intersectionList = foo.Intersect(bar, new ThisClassEqualityComparer()).ToList();
class ThisClassEqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<ThisClass>
{
public bool Equals(ThisClass b1, ThisClass b2)
{
return b1.a == b2.a;
}
public int GetHashCode(Box bx)
{
// To ignore to compare hashcode, please consider this.
// I would like to force Equals() to be called
return 0;
}
}

How does HashSet compare elements for equality?

I have a class that is IComparable:
public class a : IComparable
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public a(int id)
{
this.Id = id;
}
public int CompareTo(object obj)
{
return this.Id.CompareTo(((a)obj).Id);
}
}
When I add a list of object of this class to a hash set:
a a1 = new a(1);
a a2 = new a(2);
HashSet<a> ha = new HashSet<a>();
ha.add(a1);
ha.add(a2);
ha.add(a1);
Everything is fine and ha.count is 2, but:
a a1 = new a(1);
a a2 = new a(2);
HashSet<a> ha = new HashSet<a>();
ha.add(a1);
ha.add(a2);
ha.add(new a(1));
Now ha.count is 3.
Why doesn't HashSet respect a's CompareTo method.
Is HashSet the best way to have a list of unique objects?

It uses an IEqualityComparer<T> (EqualityComparer<T>.Default unless you specify a different one on construction).
When you add an element to the set, it will find the hash code using IEqualityComparer<T>.GetHashCode, and store both the hash code and the element (after checking whether the element is already in the set, of course).
To look an element up, it will first use the IEqualityComparer<T>.GetHashCode to find the hash code, then for all elements with the same hash code, it will use IEqualityComparer<T>.Equals to compare for actual equality.
That means you have two options:
Pass a custom IEqualityComparer<T> into the constructor. This is the best option if you can't modify the T itself, or if you want a non-default equality relation (e.g. "all users with a negative user ID are considered equal"). This is almost never implemented on the type itself (i.e. Foo doesn't implement IEqualityComparer<Foo>) but in a separate type which is only used for comparisons.
Implement equality in the type itself, by overriding GetHashCode and Equals(object). Ideally, implement IEquatable<T> in the type as well, particularly if it's a value type. These methods will be called by the default equality comparer.
Note how none of this is in terms of an ordered comparison - which makes sense, as there are certainly situations where you can easily specify equality but not a total ordering. This is all the same as Dictionary<TKey, TValue>, basically.
If you want a set which uses ordering instead of just equality comparisons, you should use SortedSet<T> from .NET 4 - which allows you to specify an IComparer<T> instead of an IEqualityComparer<T>. This will use IComparer<T>.Compare - which will delegate to IComparable<T>.CompareTo or IComparable.CompareTo if you're using Comparer<T>.Default.

Here's clarification on a part of the answer that's been left unsaid: The object type of your HashSet<T> doesn't have to implement IEqualityComparer<T> but instead just has to override Object.GetHashCode() and Object.Equals(Object obj).
Instead of this:
public class a : IEqualityComparer<a>
{
public int GetHashCode(a obj) { /* Implementation */ }
public bool Equals(a obj1, a obj2) { /* Implementation */ }
}
You do this:
public class a
{
public override int GetHashCode() { /* Implementation */ }
public override bool Equals(object obj) { /* Implementation */ }
}
It is subtle, but this tripped me up for the better part of a day trying to get HashSet to function the way it is intended. And like others have said, HashSet<a> will end up calling a.GetHashCode() and a.Equals(obj) as necessary when working with the set.

HashSet uses Equals and GetHashCode().
CompareTo is for ordered sets.
If you want unique objects, but you don't care about their iteration order, HashSet<T> is typically the best choice.

constructor HashSet receive object what implement IEqualityComparer for adding new object.
if you whant use method in HashSet you nead overrride Equals, GetHashCode
namespace HashSet
{
public class Employe
{
public Employe() {
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public override string ToString() {
return Name;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj) {
return this.Name.Equals(((Employe)obj).Name);
}
public override int GetHashCode() {
return this.Name.GetHashCode();
}
}
class EmployeComparer : IEqualityComparer<Employe>
{
public bool Equals(Employe x, Employe y)
{
return x.Name.Trim().ToLower().Equals(y.Name.Trim().ToLower());
}
public int GetHashCode(Employe obj)
{
return obj.Name.GetHashCode();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
HashSet<Employe> hashSet = new HashSet<Employe>(new EmployeComparer());
hashSet.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Nik" });
hashSet.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Rob" });
hashSet.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Joe" });
Display(hashSet);
hashSet.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Rob" });
Display(hashSet);
HashSet<Employe> hashSetB = new HashSet<Employe>(new EmployeComparer());
hashSetB.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Max" });
hashSetB.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Solomon" });
hashSetB.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Werter" });
hashSetB.Add(new Employe() { Name = "Rob" });
Display(hashSetB);
var union = hashSet.Union<Employe>(hashSetB).ToList();
Display(union);
var inter = hashSet.Intersect<Employe>(hashSetB).ToList();
Display(inter);
var except = hashSet.Except<Employe>(hashSetB).ToList();
Display(except);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void Display(HashSet<Employe> hashSet)
{
if (hashSet.Count == 0)
{
Console.Write("Collection is Empty");
return;
}
foreach (var item in hashSet)
{
Console.Write("{0}, ", item);
}
Console.Write("\n");
}
static void Display(List<Employe> list)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("Collection is Empty");
return;
}
foreach (var item in list)
{
Console.Write("{0}, ", item);
}
Console.Write("\n");
}
}
}

I came here looking for answers, but found that all the answers had too much info or not enough, so here is my answer...
Since you've created a custom class you need to implement GetHashCode and Equals. In this example I will use a class Student instead of a because it's easier to follow and doesn't violate any naming conventions. Here is what the implementations look like:
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return obj is Student student && Id == student.Id;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return HashCode.Combine(Id);
}
I stumbled across this article from Microsoft that gives an incredibly easy way to implement these if you're using Visual Studio. In case it's helpful to anyone else, here are complete steps for using a custom data type in a HashSet using Visual Studio:
Given a class Student with 2 simple properties and an initializer
public class Student
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Student(int id)
{
this.Id = id;
}
}
To Implement IComparable, add : IComparable<Student> like so:
public class Student : IComparable<Student>
You will see a red squiggly appear with an error message saying your class doesn't implement IComparable. Click on suggestions or press Alt+Enter and use the suggestion to implement it.
You will see the method generated. You can then write your own implementation like below:
public int CompareTo(Student student)
{
return this.Id.CompareTo(student.Id);
}
In the above implementation only the Id property is compared, name is ignored. Next right-click in your code and select Quick actions and refactorings, then Generate Equals and GetHashCode
A window will pop up where you can select which properties to use for hashing and even implement IEquitable if you'd like:
Here is the generated code:
public class Student : IComparable<Student>, IEquatable<Student> {
...
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return Equals(obj as Student);
}
public bool Equals(Student other)
{
return other != null && Id == other.Id;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return HashCode.Combine(Id);
}
}
Now if you try to add a duplicate item like shown below it will be skipped:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Student s1 = new Student(1);
Student s2 = new Student(2);
HashSet<Student> hs = new HashSet<Student>();
hs.Add(s1);
hs.Add(s2);
hs.Add(new Student(1)); //will be skipped
hs.Add(new Student(3));
}
You can now use .Contains like so:
for (int i = 0; i <= 4; i++)
{
if (hs.Contains(new Student(i)))
{
Console.WriteLine($#"Set contains student with Id {i}");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine($#"Set does NOT contain a student with Id {i}");
}
}
Output: