I have next chunk of code
var query = wordCollection.Select((word) => { return word.ToUpper(); })
.Where((word) =>
{
return String.IsNullOrEmpty(word);
})
.ToList();
Suppose I want to refactor this code and extract the lambda expression from Where clause. In Visual Studio I just select this lambda and do Refactor -> Extract Method. By doing so I have my LINQ modified to
var query = wordCollection.Select((word) => { return word.ToUpper(); })
.Where(NewMethod1())
.ToList();
and a NewMethod1() is declared as
private static Func<string, bool> NewMethod1()
{
return (word) =>
{
return String.IsNullOrEmpty(word);
};
}
The question is why this new method does NOT have any input parameters, as delegate Func states that NewMethod1() should have a string input parameter?
To get the expected result, mark just this part String.IsNullOrEmpty(word) and Extract the method:
private bool NewMethod(string word)
{
return String.IsNullOrEmpty(word);
}
What you originally got is because the extract created a method that returns a delegate. Not a method that matches the delegate. It is a method that returns another method. The latter accepts a string parameter word and returns a bool result.
Sure doing the above changes your code to:
.Where((word) => NewMethod(word))
But you can safely change that to:
.Where(NewMethod)
Side Note:
No need to use the return keyword in your Linq Queries or any one-line lambda, you can refactor you query to be like this:
var query = wordCollection.Select(word => word.ToUpper())
.Where(word => string.IsNullOrEmpty(word))
.ToList();
You are selecting the whole lambda, so it is trying to extract the whole lambda statement as a delegate that takes in a word and returns a boolean - Func < string, bool>.
When refactoring you should have only selected the "return String.IsNullOrEmpty(word);" part.
Additionally, you are using the lambas in an unnecessarily complex way.
You could refactor your LINQ statement to this:
var query = wordCollection.Select(word => word.ToUpper())
.Where(word => String.IsNullOrEmpty(word))
.ToList();
Or even to this:
var query = wordCollection.Select(word => word.ToUpper())
.Where(String.IsNullOrEmpty)
.ToList();
Related
Is there a way to parameterize the Contains portion of Linq when linked to an array.
I have the following code.
var query = Data.Where(s => an_array.Contains(s.Name)).Distinct().ToList();
How can I parameterize s.Name so I can create a method that uses a func or something else?
I am used to using (Func<Model, T> param ) and using it in linq where the input looks like (s=>s.Name), but I am stuck because the Contains portion is just looking for (s.Name)
I have tried using (Func<Model, string> param ) but that doesn't seem right.
Thanks!
Update 1:
If I have a method like below, where s.Name changes depending on user input.
How can I pass that to the method.
public void GetFilteredItems()
{
var queryresult = Data.Where(s => an_array.Contains(s.Name)).Distinct().ToList();
}
Ideally would like something like this so it will work with whatever is passed.
public void GetFilteredItems(Func<?,?> param)
{
var queryresult = Data.Where(s => an_array.Contains(param)).Distinct().ToList();
}
Is this what you want?
Func<Model, string> p = s => s.Name;
var query = Data.Where(s => an_array.Contains(p(s))).Distinct().ToList();
I think what you want is Any, rather than Contains. One of the overloads takes a predicate that you can use to test for a specific condition:
public void GetFilteredItems<T>(Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
var queryresult = Data.Where(s => an_array.Any(predicate)).Distinct().ToList();
}
I have the following code (this is just relevant part):
linqQuery.Select(invoice =>
new InvoiceDetailed
{
UnpaidAmount = e.SumAmount +
e.OverdueNotices.OrderByDescending(on => on.SendDate).Select(on => on.Fee).DefaultIfEmpty(0).Sum() +
e.CreditNotes.Select(c => c.CreditNoteAmount).DefaultIfEmpty(0).Sum() -
e.Payments.Select(p => p.Amount).DefaultIfEmpty(0).Sum()
}
And this calculation for UnpaidAmount I repeat in severl other queries also. My question is if there is a way to somehow wrap that expression in function like:
Expression<Func<crmInvoice_Invoice, double>> unpaidExpression = // that unpaid amount caluculation expression
And then call like this:
linqQuery.Select(invoice =>
new InvoiceDetailed
{
UnpaidAmount = unpaidExpression(invoice)
}
Then I could reuse it in more queries. Is it possible to do something similar in LINQ? And if it is not is there any alternative solution u could suggest me to avoid repeating that part of code?
No, it's impossible.
Select method gets Expression as an argument. LINQ to SQL parses Expression to SQl code. So, to solve your task you need to convert you expression to return InvoiceDetailed:
Expression<Func<crmInvoice_Invoice, InvoiceDetailed>> InvoiceDetailedExpression = ...
I want do something like this:
string test = alarmType;
db.Alarms.Where(alarmType.Contains(m => m.Type)).ToList();
But this doesn't work. How can I make such query? Is it the only way to use pure SQL?
UPD
I'm trying to find whether records is substring of the "test", not conversly.
You have to reverse the condition:
var query = db.Alarms
.Where(a => alarmType.Contains(a.Type))
.ToList();
However, your code sample is confusing, if alarmType is a string i don't know what you're trying to achieve.
string test = alarmType;
Update: if you're using LINQ-To-Sql and you want to find all records where the Type is a substring of alarmType you can use:
var query = db.Alarms
.Where(a => SqlMethods.Like(alarmType, string.Format("%{0}%", a.Type)))
.ToList();
Try the following
string test = alarmType;
var result = db.Alarms.Where(m => alarmType.Contains(m.Type)).ToList();
Your LINQ query isn't well-formatted. You have:
db.Alarms.Where(alarmType.Contains(m => m.Type)).ToList();
So the parameter you've passed to Contains is a lambda, which isn't what Contains takes,
Likeiwse, Contains returns a bool, so you've passed a bool to Where, which is also not a parameter type it takes.
What you want is to pass a lambda to Where, like so:
db.Alarms.Where(m => alarmType.Contains(m.Type)).ToList();
Note how now both the Where and the Contains are being passed parameters of the correct type.
I have a method where I am trying to return all default customer addresses with the matching gender. I would like to be able to build up the filtering query bit by bit by passing in System.Func methods to the where clause.
var emailAddresses = new List<string>();
// get all customers.
IQueryable<Customer> customersQ = base.GetAllQueryable(appContext).Where(o => o.Deleted == false);
// for each customer filter, filter the query.
var genders = new List<string>() { "C" };
Func<Customer, bool> customerGender = (o => genders.Contains(o.Addresses.FirstOrDefault(a => a.IsDefaultAddress).Gender));
customersQ = customersQ.Where(customerGender).AsQueryable();
emailAddresses = (from c in customersQ
select c.Email).Distinct().ToList();
return emailAddresses;
But this method calls the database for every address (8000) times which is very slow.
however if I replace the two lines
Func<Customer, bool> customerGender = (o => genders.Contains(o.Addresses.FirstOrDefault(a => a.IsDefaultAddress).Gender));
customersQ = customersQ.Where(customerGender).AsQueryable();
with one line
customersQ = customersQ.Where(o => genders.Contains(o.Addresses.FirstOrDefault(a => a.IsDefaultAddress).Gender)).AsQueryable();
Then the query only makes one call to the database and is very fast.
My question is why does this make a difference? How can I make the first method work with only calling the database once?
Use expression instead of Func:
Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> customerGender = (o =>
genders.Contains(o.Addresses.FirstOrDefault(a => a.IsDefaultAddress).Gender));
customersQ = customersQ.Where(customerGender).AsQueryable();
When you are using simple Func delegate, then Where extension of Enumerable is called. Thus all data goes into memory, where it is enumerated and lambda is executed for each entity. And you have many calls to database.
On the other hand, when you are using expression, then Where extension of Queryable is called, and expression is converted into SQL query. That's why you have single query in second case (if you use in-place lambda it is converted into expression).
Let's say you have the following code:
string encoded="9,8,5,4,9";
// Parse the encoded string into a collection of numbers
var nums=from string s in encoded.Split(',')
select int.Parse(s);
That's easy, but what if I want to apply a lambda expression to s in the select, but still keep this as a declarative query expression, in other words:
string encoded="9,8,5,4,9";
// Parse the encoded string into a collection of numbers
var nums=from string s in encoded.Split(',')
select (s => {/* do something more complex with s and return an int */});
This of course does not compile. But, how can I get a lambda in there without switching this to fluent syntax.
Update: Thanks to guidance from StriplingWarrior, I have a convoluted but compilable solution:
var result=from string s in test.Split(',')
select ((Func<int>)
(() => {string u="1"+s+"2"; return int.Parse(u);}))();
The key is in the cast to a Func<string,int> followed by evaluation of the lambda for each iteration of the select with (s). Can anyone come up with anything simpler (i.e., without the cast to Func followed by its evaluation or perhaps something less verbose that achieves the same end result while maintaining the query expression syntax)?
Note: The lambda content above is trivial and exemplary in nature. Please don't change it.
Update 2: Yes, it's me, crazy Mike, back with an alternate (prettier?) solution to this:
public static class Lambda
{
public static U Wrap<U>(Func<U> f)
{
return f();
}
}
...
// Then in some function, in some class, in a galaxy far far away:
// Look what we can do with no casts
var res=from string s in test.Split(',')
select Lambda.Wrap(() => {string u="1"+s+"2"; return int.Parse(u);});
I think this solves the problem without the ugly cast and parenarrhea. Is something like the Lambda.Wrap generic method already present somewhere in the .NET 4.0 Framework, so that I do not have to reinvent the wheel? Not to overburden this discussion, I have moved this point into its own question: Does this "Wrap" generic method exist in .NET 4.0.
Assuming you're using LINQ to Objects, you could just use a helper method:
select DoSomethingComplex(s)
If you don't like methods, you could use a Func:
Func<string, string> f = s => { Console.WriteLine(s); return s; };
var q = from string s in new[]{"1","2"}
select f(s);
Or if you're completely hell-bent on putting it inline, you could do something like this:
from string s in new[]{"1","2"}
select ((Func<string>)(() => { Console.WriteLine(s); return s; }))()
You could simply do:
var nums = from string s in encoded.Split(',')
select (s => { DoSomething(); return aValueBasedOnS; });
The return tells the compiler the type of the resulting collection.
How about this:
var nums= (from string s in encoded.Split(',') select s).Select( W => ...);
Can anyone come up with anything
simpler?
Yes. First, you could rewrite it like this
var result = from s in encoded.Split(',')
select ((Func<int>)(() => int.Parse("1" + s + "2")))();
However, that's not really readable, particularly for a query expression. For this particular query and projection, the let keyword could be used.
var result = from s in encoded.Split(',')
let t = "1" + s + "2"
select int.Parse(t);
IEnumerable integers = encoded.Split(',').Select(s => int.Parse(s));
Edit:
IEnumerable<int> integers = from s in encoded.Split(',') select int.Parse(string.Format("1{0}2",s));