We Keep Coding

Value-equals and circular references: how to resolve infinite recursion?

I have some classes that contain several fields. I need to compare them by value, i.e. two instances of a class are equal if their fields contain the same data. I have overridden the GetHashCode and Equals methods for that.
It can happen that these classes contain circular references.
Example: We want to model institutions (like government, sports clubs, whatever). An institution has a name. A Club is an institution that has a name and a list of members. Each member is a Person that has a name and a favourite institution. If a member of a certain club has this club as his favourite institution, we have a circular reference.
But circular references, in conjunction with value equality, lead to infinite recursion. Here is a code example:
interface IInstitution { string Name { get; } }
class Club : IInstitution
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public HashSet<Person> Members { get; set; }
public override int GetHashCode() { return Name.GetHashCode() + Members.Count; }
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
Club other = obj as Club;
if (other == null)
return false;
return Name.Equals(other.Name) && Members.SetEquals(other.Members);
}
}
class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public IInstitution FavouriteInstitution { get; set; }
public override int GetHashCode() { return Name.GetHashCode(); }
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
Person other = obj as Person;
if (other == null)
return false;
return Name.Equals(other.Name)
&& FavouriteInstitution.Equals(other.FavouriteInstitution);
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Club c1 = new Club { Name = "myClub", Members = new HashSet<Person>() };
Person p1 = new Person { Name = "Johnny", FavouriteInstitution = c1 }
c1.Members.Add(p1);
Club c2 = new Club { Name = "myClub", Members = new HashSet<Person>() };
Person p2 = new Person { Name = "Johnny", FavouriteInstitution = c2 }
c2.Members.Add(p2);
bool c1_and_c2_equal = c1.Equals(c2); // StackOverflowException!
// c1.Equals(c2) calls Members.SetEquals(other.Members)
// Members.SetEquals(other.Members) calls p1.Equals(p2)
// p1.Equals(p2) calls c1.Equals(c2)
}
}
c1_and_c2_equal should return true, and in fact we (humans) can see that they are value-equal with a little bit of thinking, without running into infinite recursion. However, I can't really say how we figure that out. But since it is possible, I hope that there is a way to resolve this problem in code as well!
So the question is: How can I check for value equality without running into infinite recursions?
Note that I need to resolve circular references in general, not only the case from above. I'll call it a 2-circle since c1 references p1, and p1 references c1. There can be other n-circles, e.g. if a club A has a member M whose favourite is club B which has member N whose favourite club is A. That would be a 4-circle. Other object models might also allow n-circles with odd numbers n. I am looking for a way to resolve all these problems at once, since I won't know in advance which value n can have.

An easy workaround (used in RDBMS) is to use a unique Id to identify a Person(any type). Then you don't need to compare every other property and you never run into such cuircular references.
Another way is to compare differently in Equals, so provide the deep check only for the type of the Equals and not for the referenced types. You could use a custom comparer:
public class PersonNameComparer : IEqualityComparer<Person>
{
public bool Equals(Person x, Person y)
{
if (x == null && y == null) return true;
if (x == null || y == null) return false;
if(object.ReferenceEquals(x, y)) return true;
return x.Name == y.Name;
}
public int GetHashCode(Person obj)
{
return obj?.Name?.GetHashCode() ?? int.MinValue;
}
}
Now you can change the Equals implementation of Club to avoid that the Members(Persons) will use their deep check which includes the institution but only their Name:
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, obj))
return true;
Club other = obj as Club;
if (other == null)
return false;
var personNameComparer = new PersonNameComparer();
return Name.Equals(other.Name)
&& Members.Count == other.Members.Count
&& !Members.Except(other.Members, personNameComparer).Any();
}
You notice that i can't use SetEquals because there is no overload for my custom comparer.

Following the suggestion of Dryadwoods, I changed the Equals methods so that I can keep track of the items that were already compared.
First we need an equality comparer that checks reference equality for corresponding elements of pairs:
public class ValuePairRefEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<(T,T)> where T : class
{
public static ValuePairRefEqualityComparer<T> Instance
= new ValuePairRefEqualityComparer<T>();
private ValuePairRefEqualityComparer() { }
public bool Equals((T,T) x, (T,T) y)
{
return ReferenceEquals(x.Item1, y.Item1)
&& ReferenceEquals(x.Item2, y.Item2);
}
public int GetHashCode((T,T) obj)
{
return RuntimeHelpers.GetHashCode(obj.Item1)
+ 2 * RuntimeHelpers.GetHashCode(obj.Item2);
}
}
And here is the modified Equals method of Club:
static HashSet<(Club,Club)> checkedPairs
= new HashSet<(Club,Club)>(ValuePairRefEqualityComparer<Club>.Instance);
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
Club other = obj as Club;
if (other == null)
return false;
if (!Name.Equals(other.Name))
return;
if (checkedPairs.Contains((this,other)) || checkedPairs.Contains((other,this)))
return true;
checkedPairs.Add((this,other));
bool membersEqual = Members.SetEquals(other.Members);
checkedPairs.Clear();
return membersEqual;
}
The version for Person is analogous. Note that I add (this,other) to checkedPairs and check if either (this,other) or (other,this) is contained because it might happen that after the first call of c1.Equals(c2), we end up with a call of c2.Equals(c1) instead of c1.Equals(c2). I am not sure if this actually happens, but since I can't see the implementation of SetEquals, I believe it is a possibility.
Since I am not happy with using a static field for the already checked pairs (it will not work if the program is concurrent!), I asked another question: make a variable last for a call stack.

For the general case that I am interested in
-- where we have classes C1, ..., Cn where each of these classes can have any number of VALUES (like int, string, ...) as well as any number of REFERENCES to any other classes of C1, ..., Cn (e.g. by having for each type Ci a field ICollection<Ci>) --
the question "Are two objects A and B equal?", in the sense of equality that I described here,
seems to be EQUIVALENT to
the question "For two finite, directed, connected, colored graphs G and H, does there exist an isomorphism from G to H?".
Here is the equivalence:
graph vertices correspond to objects (class instances)
graph edges correspond to references to objects
color corresponds to the conglomerate of values and the type itself (i.e. colors of two vertices are the same if their corresponding objects have the same type and the same values)
That's an NP-hard question, so I think I'm going to discard my plan to implement this and go with a circular-reference-free approach instead.

How to elegantly check for equality in a hierarchy of classes which have a common base class that holds a primary key?

Background
I have a base class which holds an integer ID that is used for ORM (Microsoft Entity Framework). There are about 25 classes derived from this, and the inheritance hierarchy is up to 4 classes deep.
Requirement
I need to be able to test if an object in this hierarchy is equal to another object. To be equal it is necessary but not sufficient for the IDs to be the same. For example, if two Person objects have different IDs then they are not equal, but if they have the same ID then they may or may not be equal.
Algorithm
In order to implement the C# Equals method you have to check that:
The Supplied object is not null.
It must be of the same type as this object
The IDs must match
In addition to this, all other attributes must be compared, except in the special case where the two objects are identical.
Implementation
/// <summary>
/// An object which is stored in the database
/// </summary>
public abstract class DatabaseEntity
{
/// <summary>
/// The unique identifier; if zero (0) then the ID is not assigned
/// </summary>
public int ID { get; set; }
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj == null)
{
return false;
}
if (ReferenceEquals(obj, this))
{
return true;
}
if (obj.GetType() != GetType())
{
return false;
}
DatabaseEntity databaseEntity = (DatabaseEntity)obj;
if (ID != databaseEntity.ID)
{
return false;
}
return EqualsIgnoringID(databaseEntity);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return ID;
}
/// <summary>
/// Check if this object is equal to the supplied one, disregarding the IDs
/// </summary>
/// <param name="databaseEntity">another object, which should be of the same type as this one</param>
/// <returns>true if they are equal (disregarding the ID)</returns>
protected abstract bool EqualsIgnoringID(DatabaseEntity databaseEntity);
}
public class Person : DatabaseEntity
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public override bool EqualsIgnoringID(DatabaseEntity databaseEntity)
{
Person person = (Person)databaseEntity;
return person.FirstName == FirstName && person.LastName == LastName;
}
}
public class User: Person
{
public string Password { get; set; }
public override bool EqualsIgnoringID(DatabaseEntity databaseEntity)
{
User user = (User)databaseEntity;
return user.Password == Password;
}
}
Comments
The feature of this solution that I dislike the most is the explicit conversions. Is there an alternative solution, which avoids having to repeat all the common logic (checking for null, type etc) in each class?

It seems simpler if instead of using abstract, you just keep overriding the Equals method for subclasses. Then you can extend like this:
public class Person : DatabaseEntity
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public override bool Equals(object other)
{
if (!base.Equals(other))
return false;
Person person = (Person)other;
return person.FirstName == FirstName && person.LastName == LastName;
}
}
You have to cast to Person, but this works with relatively few lines of code and with long hierarchies without any worries. (Because you already checked for the runtime types being the same in the very root of the hierarchy, you don't even have to do a as Person with a null check.)
As mentioned in the comments, with the above approach you can't stop evaluating (short-circuit) if you know for certain this is equal to other. (Although you do short-circuit if you know for sure this is not equal to other.) For example, if this has reference equality with other, you can short-circuit because there's no doubt that an object is equal to itself.
Being able to return early would mean that you can skip a lot of checks. This is useful if the checks are expensive.
To allow Equals to short-circuit true as well as false, we can add a new equality method that returns bool? to represent three states:
true: this is definitely equal to other without any need to check derived classes' properties. (Short-circuit.)
false: this is definitely not equal to other without any need to check derived classes' properties. (Short-circuit.)
null: this might or might not be equal to other, depending on derived classes' properties. (Do not short-circuit.)
Since this doesn't match the bool of Equals, you need to define Equals in terms of BaseEquals. Each derived class checks its base class' BaseEquals and chooses to short circuit if an answer is already definite (true or false) and if not, find out if the current class proves inequality. In Equals, then, a null means that no class in the inheritance hierarchy could determine inequality, so the two objects are equal and Equals should return true. Here's an implementation that will hopefully explain this better:
public class DatabaseEntity
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public override bool Equals(object other)
{
// Turn a null answer into true: if the most derived class has not
// eliminated the possibility of equality, this and other are equal.
return BaseEquals(other) ?? true;
}
protected virtual bool? BaseEquals(object other)
{
if (other == null)
return false;
if (ReferenceEquals(this, other))
return true;
if (GetType() != other.GetType())
return false;
DatabaseEntity databaseEntity = (DatabaseEntity)other;
if (ID != databaseEntity.ID)
return false;
return null;
}
}
public class Person : DatabaseEntity
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
protected override bool? BaseEquals(object other)
{
bool? baseEquals = base.BaseEquals(other);
if (baseEquals != null)
return baseEquals;
Person person = (Person)other;
if (person.FirstName != FirstName || person.LastName != LastName)
return false;
return null;
}
}

This is pretty easy using generics:
public abstract class Entity<T>
{
protected abstract bool IsEqual(T other);
}
public class Person : Entity<Person>
{
protected override bool IsEqual(Person other) { ... }
}
This works fine for one level of inheritance, or when all the levels are abstract except for the last one.
If that's not good enough for you, you have a decision to make:
If it's not all that common, it might be just fine to keep the few exceptions with manual casts.
If it is common, you're out of luck. Making Person generic works, but it kind of defeats the purpose - it requires you to specify the concrete Person-derived type whenever you need to use Person. This can be handled by having an interface IPerson that's not generic. Of course, in effect, this still means that Person is abstract - you have no way of constructing a non-concrete version of Person. Why wouldn't it be abstract, in fact? Can you have a Person that isn't one of the derived types of Person? That sounds like a bad idea.

Well here is a variant of #31eee384 one's.
I don't use it's trinary abstract method. I suppose that if base.Equals() return true, I still need to perform the derived Equals checks too.
The drawback though is that you renounce to have the Reference Equality in base.Equals to propagate this "short-circuit" in derived classes Equals method.
Maybe there exists something in C# to "force to stop" the overriding somehow and "hard return true" when the reference equality is true without continuing the overridden derived Equals calls.
Also do note that following 31eee384 answer, we give up the template method pattern used by OP. Using this pattern again actually goes back to OP's implementation.
public class Base : IEquatable<Base>
{
public int ID {get; set;}
public Base(int id)
{ID = id;}
public virtual bool Equals(Base other)
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin Base.Equals(Base other);");
if (other == null) return false;
if (ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true;
if (GetType() != other.GetType()) return false;
return ID == other.ID;
}
public override bool Equals(object other)
{
return this.Equals(other as Base);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked
{
// Choose large primes to avoid hashing collisions
const int HashingBase = (int) 2166136261;
const int HashingMultiplier = 16777619;
int hash = HashingBase;
hash = (hash * HashingMultiplier) ^ (!Object.ReferenceEquals(null, ID) ? ID.GetHashCode() : 0);
return hash;
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "A Base object with ["+ID+"] as ID";
}
}
public class Derived : Base, IEquatable<Derived>
{
public string Name {get; set;}
public Derived(int id, string name) : base(id)
{Name = name;}
public bool Equals(Derived other)
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin Derived.Equals(Derived other);");
if (!base.Equals(other)) return false;
return Name == other.Name;
}
public override bool Equals(object other)
{
return this.Equals(other as Derived);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked
{
// Choose large primes to avoid hashing collisions
const int HashingBase = (int) 2166136261;
const int HashingMultiplier = 16777619;
int hash = HashingBase;
hash = (hash * HashingMultiplier) ^ base.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * HashingMultiplier) ^ (!Object.ReferenceEquals(null, Name) ? Name.GetHashCode() : 0);
return hash;
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "A Derived object with '" + Name + "' as Name, and also " + base.ToString();
}
}
Here is my fiddle link.

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: