We Keep Coding

How do I check if an object's FIELD exists in a list of the given object?

I have 2 classes one called Record and one called Location
public class Record
{
public string Id { get; set; }
}
public class Location
{
public string LocationId { get; set; }
public bool isDefault { get; set; }
}
Now I need to check whether in a list of Locations whether the given ID from Record exists in the List of Locations. For example this is my code so far for handling. If field.Id does not exist in the current list then it should create a new Location and add it to the list.
foreach (Record field in inputs)
{
locationResponse = await myLocationCmd.GetLocation(locationInput).ConfigureAwait(false);
foreach (Location locations in locationResponse.Locations)
{
if (locations.IsDefault == true)
{
this.BadRequest();
}
else if (locations.IsDefault == false && // Check whether field.Id exists in locationResponse.Locations)
{
locationInput.Verb = CmdletVerb.Set.ToString();
}
else if (locations.IsDefault == false && // Check whether field.Id does not exist in the locationResponse.Locations)
{
locationInput.Verb = CmdletVerb.New.ToString();
}
}
Currently I tried doing locationResponse.Locations.Contains(field.Id) but this produces a type error. Does anyone know the correct way to do this?

If I understood correctly, you need to loop over every object to check the ID
locationResponse.Locations.Contains(field.Id) gives a type error because that is a list of Locations, not a list of Strings
locationResponse = await myLocationCmd.GetLocation(locationInput).ConfigureAwait(false);
foreach (Record field in inputs) {
var idExists = false;
foreach (Location loc in locationResponse.Locations)
idExists = loc.LocationId == field.Id;
if (idExists) break;
}
Console.WriteLine(idExists);
}
I would be cautious about the size of the inputs list, though, because you are looking over the same locations list more than once for every field, which is wasted iterations

The shortest fix based on the given code would be using:
bool idExistsInList = locationResponse.Locations.Any(location => location.LocationId == field.Id);
And then you can use idExistsInList and !idExistsInList (respectively) in your two comments.
However, there are several further improvements to be made:
There is a bug in your code. Your inner foreach keeps overwriting the same value and will effectively only keep the value that is set in the last loop of the foreach.
The exact same bug happens for your outer foreach. The value of locationInput.Verb is effectively defined by comparing the last element of both lists, and all other evalutation are effectively overwritten.
In general, favor LINQ over manual foreach logic. It enhances readability and cuts down on boilerplating.
Assuming this is the only logic in the outer foreach, that can also be simplified using LINQ.
For every input field, you fetch the same locationResponse. It makes no sense to do this for every field if the specific field value isn't actually used to fetch the object.
There's no need for the third if evaluation. When the first two evaluations have failed, then the third one is always going to be true.
== true can always be omitted.
== false should generally be refactored to using !
When you always set the same field/property, but a boolean value decided if you set it to one value or another, favor using the ternary myBool ? valueIfTrue : valueIfFalse.
You can extract this logic outside of the foreach loops:
var locationResponse = await myLocationCmd.GetLocation(locationInput).ConfigureAwait(false);
if(locationResponse.Locations.Any(location => location.IsDefault))
this.BadRequest();
var locationIds = locationResponse.Locations.Select(location => location.LocationId).ToList();
How to handle the foreach loops is unclear, as I'm not sure whether you're trying to find if any field (= at least one) has a match in the location list, or whether every field has a match in the location list.
If you're trying to find if any field (= at least one) has a match in the location list:
bool matchFound = inputs.Any(field => locationIds.Contains(field.Id);
If you're trying to find if every field has a match in the location list:
bool matchFound = inputs.All(field => locationIds.Contains(field.Id);
Any returns true if at least one field has a match, All only returns true if all fields have a match.
In either case, you can then continue on with:
locationInput.Verb = matchFound
? CmdletVerb.Set.ToString()
: CmdletVerb.New.ToString();
And that accomplishes the same as your code, but with less redundancy and higher readability.

Update items in List<T> c#

I have a class to handle some data :
public class User
{
public string Name;
public string Date;
}
In another class,i create a List of User class and add data as follows :
public class Display
{
List<User> userData = new List<User>;
private void add()
{
User udata = new User;
udate.Name = "Abc";
udata.Date = "1/1/18";
userData.Add(udata);
}
}
My question is, after adding some data,how do i update it ? Say i have added a data(udata is what i mean) with a Name of ABC,how do i update it?

Since your list contains a mutable type, all you need to do is get a reference to the specific item you want to update.
That can be done in a number of ways - using it's index, using the Find method, or using linq are the first three that comes to mind.
Using index:
userData[0]?.Name = "CBA";
Using Find:
userData.Find(u => u.Name = "Abc")?.Name = "CBA";
Using linq (FirstOrDefault is not the only option):
userData.FirstOrDefault(u => u.Name = "Abc")?.Name = "CBA";
Note the use of null conditional operator (]? and .?) it prevents a null reference exception in case the item is not found.
Update
As Ak77th7 commented (thanks for that!), the code in this answer wasn't tested and will cause a compilation error -
error CS0131: The left-hand side of an assignment must be a variable,
property or indexer
The reason for this is the null-conditional operator (?.).
You can use it to get values from properties, but not for setting them.
The fix is either to accept the fact that your code might throw a NullReferenceException (which I personally believe has no room in production-grade code) or to make your code a bit more cumbersome:
// Note: Possible null here!
userData.Find(u => u.Name.EndsWith("1")).Name = "Updated by Find";
// Safe, but cumbersome
var x = userData.FirstOrDefault(u => u.Name.EndsWith("2"));
if(x is not null)
{
x.Name = "Updated by FirstOrDefault";
}
See a live demo on SharpLab.IO

Nothing tricky, really (but does use System.Linq)
**EDIT: Changed Single to First to avoid error if there are two users with the same name. **
void Update(string name, string newName)
{
var user = userData.First(u => u.Name == name);
user.Name = newName;
}
Notice this changes the object, and the List maintains reference to the changed object.

Setting value of object property in List<T> using LINQ

I have a List<Email>() and my Email object looks like this:
public class Email
{
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public bool IsPrimary { get; set; }
}
When I add a new email address that is set as primary, I want to set all the others as non-primary. I currently handle this using a foreach. Can I handle this using LINQ?
My current code is:
foreach (var item in emails)
{
if(item.EmailAddress.ToLower() != newEmailAddress.ToLower() && item.IsPrimary)
item.IsPrimary = false;
}

Linq queries collections, it doesn't modify them. The only spot in this equation that linq would come into play is actually making it a part of the enumeration - filtering the collection you're iterating over rather than doing an if statement inside it.
foreach (var item in emails.Where(e => e.IsPrimary && !e.EmailAddress.Equals(newEmailAddress, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase)))
{
item.IsPrimary = false;
}
EDIT: I didn't originally include it as it's not LINQ and that's what the question is about, but as mentioned in the comments on your question List<T> does include a ForEach method.
It would look like this:
emails.ForEach(item =>
{
item.IsPrimary = item.IsPrimary && item.EmailAddress.Equals(newEmailAddress, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
});

LINQ is intended for querying and not modification. Having said that, there is a List.ForEach operator, but with no increase in readability most of the time.
Having said that, I personally prefer not having side effect causing code that modifies the collection but I am not opposed to modifying the objects in the collection.
Add an extension method on IEnumerable to encapsulate the foreach loop:
public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Action<T> action) {
foreach (var s in source)
action(s);
}
Then you can re-write your code as follows:
emails.Where(item => item.IsPrimary && !item.EmailAddress.Equals(newEmailAddress, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
.ForEach(item => item.IsPrimary = false);
(Thanks to #McAden for the better string comparison I always forget.)
However, since you are creating a race condition anyway, if practical I would suggest reversing your order of operations:
// before adding newEmailAddress
emails[emails.FindIndex(item => item.IsPrimary)].IsPrimary = false; // add error handling if it is possible no `IsPrimary` exists.
// now assign the newEmailAddress and set that item.IsPrimary to true

You can easily do that, but you should not as no one would expect LINQ code to modify the items in the collection.
emails
.Where(item =>
(item.EmailAddress.ToLower() != newEmailAddress.ToLower() && item.IsPrimary)
.Select(item => { item.IsPrimary = false; return true;})
.All();
Note that since LINQ queries are actually executed when result is enumerated you need something that will actually enumerate result. I.e. .All() call.
What would happen after you write this code - someone (or you in a week) remove that stupid and pointless .All() call at the end and things will be somewhat
ok, but modification no longer happen, person will spend a day sorting it out and then use some words to describe author of the code. Don't go there.

Check if list contains element that contains a string and get that element

While searching for an answer to this question, I've run into similar ones utilizing LINQ but I haven't been able to fully understand them (and thus, implement them), as I'm not familiarized with it. What I would like to, basically, is this:
Check if any element of a list contains a specific string.
If it does, get that element.
I honestly don't know how I would go about doing that. What I can come up with is this (not working, of course):
if (myList.Contains(myString))
string element = myList.ElementAt(myList.IndexOf(myString));
I know WHY it does not work:
myList.Contains() does not return true, since it will check for if a whole element of the list matches the string I specified.
myList.IndexOf() will not find an occurrence, since, as it is the case again, it will check for an element matching the string.
Still, I have no clue how to solve this problem, but I figure I'll have to use LINQ as suggested in similar questions to mine. That being said, if that's the case here, I'd like for the answerer to explain to me the use of LINQ in their example (as I said, I haven't bothered with it in my time with C#). Thank you in advance guys (and gals?).
EDIT: I have come up with a solution; just loop through the list, check if current element contains the string and then set a string equal to the current element. I'm wondering, though, is there a more efficient way than this?
string myString = "bla";
string element = "";
for (int i = 0; i < myList.Count; i++)
{
if (myList[i].Contains(myString))
element = myList[i];
}

You should be able to use Linq here:
var matchingvalues = myList
.Where(stringToCheck => stringToCheck.Contains(myString));
If you simply wish to return the first matching item:
var match = myList
.FirstOrDefault(stringToCheck => stringToCheck.Contains(myString));
if(match != null)
//Do stuff

The basic answer is: you need to iterate through loop and check any element contains the specified string.
So, let's say the code is:
foreach(string item in myList)
{
if(item.Contains(myString))
return item;
}
The equivalent, but terse, code is:
mylist.Where(x => x.Contains(myString)).FirstOrDefault();
Here, x is a parameter that acts like "item" in the above code.

string result = myList.FirstOrDefault(x => x == myString)
if(result != null)
{
//found
}

for (int i = 0; i < myList.Length; i++)
{
if (myList[i].Contains(myString)) // (you use the word "contains". either equals or indexof might be appropriate)
{
return i;
}
}
Old fashion loops are almost always the fastest.

If you want a list of strings containing your string:
var newList = myList.Where(x => x.Contains(myString)).ToList();
Another option is to use Linq FirstOrDefault
var element = myList.Where(x => x.Contains(myString)).FirstOrDefault();
Keep in mind that Contains method is case sensitive.

You could use Linq's FirstOrDefault extension method:
string element = myList.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Contains(myString));
This will return the fist element that contains the substring myString, or null if no such element is found.
If all you need is the index, use the List<T> class's FindIndex method:
int index = myList.FindIndex(s => s.Contains(myString));
This will return the the index of fist element that contains the substring myString, or -1 if no such element is found.

Many good answers here, but I use a simple one using Exists, as below:
foreach (var setting in FullList)
{
if(cleanList.Exists(x => x.ProcedureName == setting.ProcedureName))
setting.IsActive = true; // do you business logic here
else
setting.IsActive = false;
updateList.Add(setting);
}

You should be able to use something like this, it has worked okay for me:
var valuesToMatch = yourList.Where(stringCheck => stringCheck.Contains(myString));
or something like this, if you need to look where it doesn't match.
var valuesToMatch = yourList.Where(stringCheck => !stringCheck.Contains(myString));

you can use
var match=myList.Where(item=>item.Contains("Required String"));
foreach(var i in match)
{
//do something with the matched items
}
LINQ provides you with capabilities to "query" any collection of data. You can use syntax like a database query (select, where, etc) on a collection (here the collection (list) of strings).
so you are doing like "get me items from the list Where it satisfies a given condition"
inside the Where you are using a "lambda expression"
to tell briefly lambda expression is something like (input parameter => return value)
so for a parameter "item", it returns "item.Contains("required string")" . So it returns true if the item contains the string and thereby it gets selected from the list since it satisfied the condition.

To keep it simple use this;
foreach(string item in myList)//Iterate through each item.
{
if(item.Contains("Search Term")//True if the item contains search pattern.
{
return item;//Return the matched item.
}
}
Alternatively,to do this with for loop,use this;
for (int iterator = 0; iterator < myList.Count; iterator++)
{
if (myList[iterator].Contains("String Pattern"))
{
return myList[iterator];
}
}

It is possible to combine Any, Where, First and FirstOrDefault; or just place the predicate in any of those methods depending on what is needed.
You should probably avoid using First unless you want to have an exception thrown when no match is found. FirstOrDefault is usually the better option as long as you know it will return the type's default if no match is found (string's default is null, int is 0, bool is false, etc).
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
bool exists;
string firstMatch;
IEnumerable<string> matchingList;
var myList = new List<string>() { "foo", "bar", "foobar" };
exists = myList.Any(x => x.Contains("o"));
// exists => true
firstMatch = myList.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Contains("o"));
firstMatch = myList.First(x => x.Contains("o"));
// firstMatch => "foo"
firstMatch = myList.First(x => x.Contains("dark side"));
// throws exception because no element contains "dark side"
firstMatch = myList.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Contains("dark side"));
// firstMatch => null
matchingList = myList.Where(x => x.Contains("o"));
// matchingList => { "foo", "foobar" }
Test this code # https://rextester.com/TXDL57489

I have not seen bool option in other answers so I hope below code will help someone.
Just use Any()
string myString = "test";
bool exists = myList
.Where(w => w.COLUMN_TO_CHECK.Contains(myString)).Any();

You can check the list is empty or not in multiple ways.
1)Check list is null and then check count is greater than zero like below:-
if(myList!=null && myList.Count>0)
{
//List has more than one record.
}
2)Check list null and count greater than zero using linq query like below:-
if(myList!=null && myList.Count>0)
{
//List has more than one record.
}

IEnumerable<T>.Union(IEnumerable<T>) overwrites contents instead of unioning

I've got a collection of items (ADO.NET Entity Framework), and need to return a subset as search results based on a couple different criteria. Unfortunately, the criteria overlap in such a way that I can't just take the collection Where the criteria are met (or drop Where the criteria are not met), since this would leave out or duplicate valid items that should be returned.
I decided I would do each check individually, and combine the results. I considered using AddRange, but that would result in duplicates in the results list (and my understanding is it would enumerate the collection every time - am I correct/mistaken here?). I realized Union does not insert duplicates, and defers enumeration until necessary (again, is this understanding correct?).
The search is written as follows:
IEnumerable<MyClass> Results = Enumerable.Empty<MyClass>();
IEnumerable<MyClass> Potential = db.MyClasses.Where(x => x.Y); //Precondition
int parsed_key;
//For each searchable value
foreach(var selected in SelectedValues1)
{
IEnumerable<MyClass> matched = Potential.Where(x => x.Value1 == selected);
Results = Results.Union(matched); //This is where the problem is
}
//Ellipsed....
foreach(var selected in SelectedValuesN) //Happens to be integer
{
if(!int.TryParse(selected, out parsed_id))
continue;
IEnumerable<MyClass> matched = Potential.Where(x => x.ValueN == parsed_id);
Results = Results.Union(matched); //This is where the problem is
}
It seems, however, that Results = Results.Union(matched) is working more like Results = matched. I've stepped through with some test data and a test search. The search asks for results where the first field is -1, 0, 1, or 3. This should return 4 results (two 0s, a 1 and a 3). The first iteration of the loops works as expected, with Results still being empty. The second iteration also works as expected, with Results containing two items. After the third iteration, however, Results contains only one item.
Have I just misunderstood how .Union works, or is there something else going on here?

Because of deferred execution, by the time you eventually consume Results, it is the union of many Where queries all of which are based on the last value of selected.
So you have
Results = Potential.Where(selected)
.Union(Potential.Where(selected))
.Union(potential.Where(selected))...
and all the selected values are the same.
You need to create a var currentSelected = selected inside your loop and pass that to the query. That way each value of selected will be captured individually and you won't have this problem.

You can do this much more simply:
Reuslts = SelectedValues.SelectMany(s => Potential.Where(x => x.Value == s));
(this may return duplicates)
Or
Results = Potential.Where(x => SelectedValues.Contains(x.Value));

As pointed out by others, your LINQ expression is a closure. This means your variable selected is captured by the LINQ expression in each iteration of your foreach-loop. The same variable is used in each iteration of the foreach, so it will end up having whatever the last value was. To get around this, you will need to declare a local variable within the foreach-loop, like so:
//For each searchable value
foreach(var selected in SelectedValues1)
{
var localSelected = selected;
Results = Results.Union(Potential.Where(x => x.Value1 == localSelected));
}
It is much shorter to just use .Contains():
Results = Results.Union(Potential.Where(x => SelectedValues1.Contains(x.Value1)));
Since you need to query multiple SelectedValues collections, you could put them all inside their own collection and iterate over that as well, although you'd need some way of matching the correct field/property on your objects.
You could possibly do this by storing your lists of selected values in a Dictionary with the name of the field/property as the key. You would use Reflection to look up the correct field and perform your check. You could then shorten the code to the following:
// Store each of your searchable lists here
Dictionary<string, IEnumerable<MyClass>> DictionaryOfSelectedValues = ...;
Type t = typeof(MyType);
// For each list of searchable values
foreach(var selectedValues in DictionaryOfSelectedValues) // Returns KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>
{
// Try to get a property for this key
PropertyInfo prop = t.GetProperty(selectedValues.Key);
IEnumerable<MyClass> localSelected = selectedValues.Value;
if( prop != null )
{
Results = Results.Union(Potential.Where(x =>
localSelected.Contains(prop.GetValue(x, null))));
}
else // If it's not a property, check if the entry is for a field
{
FieldInfo field = t.GetField(selectedValues.Key);
if( field != null )
{
Results = Results.Union(Potential.Where(x =>
localSelected.Contains(field.GetValue(x, null))));
}
}
}

No, your use of union is absoloutely correct.
The only thing to keep in mind is it excludes duplicates as based on the equality operator. Do you have sample data?

Okay, I think you are are haveing a problem because Union uses deferred execution.
What happens if you do,
var unionResults = Results.Union(matched).ToList();
Results = unionResults;