I have three classes defined like this:
public class MaterialByOperator
{
public int IdOperator{ get; set; }
public int IdMaterial { get; set;}
}
public class Material
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class AssignedOperator
{
public int idOperation { get; set; }
public int idOperator { get; set; }
}
IdMaterial in MaterialByOperator is a "ForeignKey" for Material. The relationship is One to Many.
IdOperator in MaterialByOperator is a "ForeignKey" for AssignedOperator in a One to One relationship.
Then I define this 3 ObservableCollection:
public ObservableCollection<Material> Materials;
public ObservableCollection<MaterialByOperator> MaterialsXOperator;
public ObservableCollection<AssignedOperator> AssignedOperators;
What i want is to get the operator names who does not have any materials asigned. I now do it like this:
var mate = MaterialsXOperator.GroupBy(x => x.idOperator); //Group materials by operatorId
//left join assignedOperators with the grouped materials
var opeasigmate = AssignedOperators.GroupJoin(mate, oper => oper.idOperator,
grupo => grupo.Key, (oper, grupo) => new { oper, grupo });
var operWithoutmate = opeasigmate.Where(x => x.grupo.Count() == 0);
What I want to know, as my LINQ knowledge is not very wide (believe it or not, i had it forbidden in my job for years) is there any simplest way of archieving what i want? As i have told, my solution works but i'd like to see other points of view to hopefully learn by the way.
Using Any is definitely simpler:
var operWithoutmate = AssignedOperators
.Where(ao => !MaterialsXOperator.Any(mo => mo.IdOperator == ao.idOperator);
But using join in general is more efficient, so I would suggest you keeping it that way. The only improvement could be to replace x.grupo.Count() == 0 with !x.grupo.Any(). Also the GroupBy in this case is redundant, so the query could be:
var operWithoutmate = AssignedOperators
.GroupJoin(MaterialsXOperator, ao => ao.idOperator, mo => mo.IdOperator,
(ao, moGroup) => new { ao, moGroup })
.Where(r => !r.moGroup.Any())
.Select(r => r.ao);
I personally find the query syntax to be easier and more readable when there are joins involved:
var operWithoutmate =
from ao in AssignedOperators
join mo in MaterialsXOperator on ao.idOperator equals mo.IdOperator into moGroup
where !moGroup.Any()
select ao;
Related
I have the following structure: Training has many Module has many Phase has many Question.
I use the following query to get the above
Context.Trainings
.Include(x => x.Modules)
.ThenInclude(x => x.Phases)
.ThenInclude(y => y.Questions)
Question also has many Comment but that relationship is not defined as navigation property because Comment can have different type of patents. So Comment just has a ParentId that is sometimes Question and sometimes other things.
My question is how do I modify the above query to, for every Question, count the child Comment from the Context.Comments and assign it to Question.CommentCount? Kind of like a manual Include
In my head it's something like this
Context.Trainings
.Include(x => x.Modules)
.ThenInclude(x => x.Phases)
.ThenInclude(y => y.Questions.Select(x=> new Question.Question {
Name = x.Name,
Description = x.Description,
CommentCount = Context.Comments.Where(y=>y.ParentId == x.Id)
}));
But it seems you can't put projections in Include and I don't know how to think about this in another way.
With the entities set up such as ...
public class Training
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public ICollection<Module> Modules { get; set; }
}
public class Module
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public ICollection<Phase> Phases { get; set; }
}
public class Phase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public ICollection<Question> Questions { get; set; }
}
public class Question
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public int CommentCount { get; set; }
}
public class Comment
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int ParentId { get; set; }
}
// DbContext
public DbSet<Training> Trainings { get; set; }
public DbSet<Module> Modules { get; set; }
public DbSet<Phase> Phases { get; set; }
public DbSet<Question> Questions { get; set; }
public DbSet<Comment> Comments { get; set; }
... it can be done in a single query, but it's quite messy.
// query all nested navigations using projections with extra data
var projected = await context.Trainings
.Select(t =>
new
{
Training = t,
Modules = t.Modules.Select(m =>
new
{
Module = m,
Phases = m.Phases.Select(p =>
new
{
Phase = p,
Questions = p.Questions.Select(q =>
new
{
Question = q,
CommentCount = context.Comments.Count(c => c.ParentId == q.Id)
}
)
}
)
}
)
}
)
.ToListAsync();
// fixup by setting comment count from dto projection to "real" tracked entity
foreach (var q in projected.SelectMany(t => t.Modules).SelectMany(m => m.Phases).SelectMany(m => m.Questions))
{
q.Question.CommentCount = q.CommentCount;
}
// thanks to ef core entity tracker this will still work
var trainings = projected.Select(p => p.Training);
var totalCommentCount = trainings.SelectMany(t => t.Modules).SelectMany(m => m.Phases).SelectMany(p => p.Questions).Sum(q => q.CommentCount);
final query
SELECT [t].[Id], [t0].[Id], [t0].[TrainingId], [t0].[Id0], [t0].[ModuleId], [t0].[Id00], [t0].[PhaseId], [t0].[c]
FROM [Trainings] AS [t]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [m].[Id], [m].[TrainingId], [t1].[Id] AS [Id0], [t1].[ModuleId], [t1].[Id0] AS [Id00], [t1].[PhaseId], [t1].[c]
FROM [Modules] AS [m]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [p].[Id], [p].[ModuleId], [q].[Id] AS [Id0], [q].[PhaseId], (
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM [Comments] AS [c]
WHERE [c].[ParentId] = [q].[Id]) AS [c]
FROM [Phases] AS [p]
LEFT JOIN [Questions] AS [q] ON [p].[Id] = [q].[PhaseId]
) AS [t1] ON [m].[Id] = [t1].[ModuleId]
) AS [t0] ON [t].[Id] = [t0].[TrainingId]
ORDER BY [t].[Id], [t0].[Id], [t0].[Id0]
As pointed out in comments, you could benefit from using TPH with real navigation collection back to comments from questions, and you should also probably use split query or multiple queries instead of joining it all up like this. But depending on use case, perhaps a single query might perform better for you.
I have a list of the following class:
public class SiloRelationship
{
public int RelationshipType { get; set; }
public string MasterKey { get; set; }
public string SlaveKey { get; set; }
public int QueryId { get; set; }
}
I have a second list of the following class:
public class SiloNode
{
public string Key { get; private set; }
public string Url { get; private set; }
public List<NodeQuery> Queries { get; private set; }
}
Which has a sub-class:
public class NodeQuery
{
public string Query { get; private set; }
public int Seq { get; private set; }
}
Lists:
LandingSilo.Relationships is a list of SiloRelationship
LandingSilo.Nodes is a list of SiloNode.
Here's my query - there is a simple join, after which I need to return the Url and Query properties - the filter should result in a single QueryNode from the list.
What we have is:
SiloRelationship => 1 to 1 SiloNode => 1 to many QueryNode
A Kvp would be adequate for the purpose of the exercise but I can't see the Query property with the code I've got so far.
var query =
from r in LandingSilo.Relationships
join n in LandingSilo.Nodes on r.SlaveKey equals n.Key
where r.RelationshipType == 1 &&
n.Queries.Select(y => y.Seq).Contains(r.QueryId)
Any help appreciated.
Try this:
IEnumerable<string> queries = LandingSilo.Relationships
.Where(r => r.RelationshipType == 1)
.Join(
LandingSilo.Nodes,
r => r.SlaveKey,
n => n.Key,
(r, n) => n.Queries.SingleOrDefault(q => q.Seq == r.QueryId))
.Where(q => q != null)
.Select(q => q.Query);
Line by line: filter all Relationships with type different from 1, join on SlaveKey/Key and select the only query in the node that has the Seq equal to the Relationships QueryId. Filter out null results and select the Query property. This is going to throw an InvalidOperationException if there are multiple queries within one node matching.
This can be also done in the LINQ keyword syntax like this:
IEnumerable<string> queries =
from r in LandingSilo.Relationships
where r.RelationshipType == 1
join n in LandingSilo.Nodes on r.SlaveKey equals n.Key
from q in n.Queries.SingleOrDefault(q => q.Seq == r.QueryId)
where q != null
select q.Query;
You just need to filter the Queries. Change last statement like below
select n.Queries.FirstOrDefault(q => q.Seq == q.QueryId);
I have 3 classes and trying to use LINQ methods to perform an INNER JOIN and a LEFT JOIN. I'm able to perform each separately, but no luck together since I can't even figure out the syntax.
Ultimately, the SQL I'd write would be:
SELECT *
FROM [Group] AS [g]
INNER JOIN [Section] AS [s] ON [s].[GroupId] = [g].[Id]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [Course] AS [c] ON [c].[SectionId] = [s].[Id]
Classes
public class Group {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Name { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public ICollection<Section> Sections { get; set; }
}
public class Section {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Name { get; set; }
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public Group Group { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public ICollection<Course> Courses { get; set; }
}
public class Course {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int UserId { get; set; }
public int Name { get; set; }
public int SectionId { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
}
Samples
I want the result to be of type Group. I successfully performed the LEFT JOIN between Section and Course, but then I have an object of type IQueryable<a>, which is not what I want, sinceGroup`.
var result = db.Section
.GroupJoin(db.Course,
s => s.Id,
c => c.SectionId,
(s, c) => new { s, c = c.DefaultIfEmpty() })
.SelectMany(s => s.c.Select(c => new { s = s.s, c }));
I also tried this, but returns NULL because this performs an INNER JOIN on all tables, and the user has not entered any Courses.
var result = db.Groups
.Where(g => g.IsActive)
.Include(g => g.Sections)
.Include(g => g.Sections.Select(s => s.Courses))
.Where(g => g.Sections.Any(s => s.IsActive && s.Courses.Any(c => c.UserId == _userId && c.IsActive)))
.ToList();
Question
How can I perform an INNER and a LEFT JOIN with the least number of calls to the database and get a result of type Group?
Desired Result
I would like to have 1 object of type Group, but only as long as a Group has a Section. I also want to return the Courses the user has for the specific Section or return NULL.
I think what you ask for is impossible without returning a new (anonymous) object instead of Group (as demonstrated in this answer). EF will not allow you to get a filtered Course collection inside a Section because of the way relations and entity caching works, which means you can't use navigational properties for this task.
First of all, you want to have control over which related entities are loaded, so I suggest to enable lazy loading by marking the Sections and Courses collection properties as virtual in your entities (unless you've enabled lazy loading for all entities in your application) as we don't want EF to load related Sections and Courses as it would load all courses for each user anyway.
public class Group {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Name { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Section> Sections { get; set; }
}
public class Section {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Name { get; set; }
public int GroupId { get; set; }
public Group Group { get; set; }
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Course> Courses { get; set; }
}
In method syntax, the query would probably look something like this:
var results = db.Group
.Where(g => g.IsActive)
.GroupJoin(
db.Section.Where(s => s.IsActive),
g => g.Id,
s => s.GroupId,
(g, s) => new
{
Group = g,
UserSections = s
.GroupJoin(
db.Course.Where(c => c.IsActive && c.UserId == _userId).DefaultIfEmpty(),
ss => ss.Id,
cc => cc.SectionId,
(ss, cc) => new
{
Section = ss,
UserCourses = cc
}
)
})
.ToList();
And you would consume the result as:
foreach (var result in results)
{
var group = result.Group;
foreach (var userSection in result.UserSections)
{
var section = userSection.Section;
var userCourses = userSection.UserCourses;
}
}
Now, if you don't need additional filtering of the group results on database level, you can as well go for the INNER JOIN and LEFT OUTER JOIN approach by using this LINQ query and do the grouping in-memory:
var results = db.Group
.Where(g => g.IsActive)
.Join(
db.Section.Where(s => s.IsActive),
g => g.Id,
s => s.GroupId,
(g, s) => new
{
Group = g,
UserSection = new
{
Section = s,
UserCourses = db.Course.Where(c => c.IsActive && c.UserId == _userId && c.SectionId == s.Id).DefaultIfEmpty()
}
})
.ToList() // Data gets fetched from database at this point
.GroupBy(x => x.Group) // In-memory grouping
.Select(x => new
{
Group = x.Key,
UserSections = x.Select(us => new
{
Section = us.UserSection,
UserCourses = us.UserSection.UserCourses
})
});
Remember, whenever you're trying to access group.Sections or section.Courses, you will trigger the lazy loading which will fetch all child section or courses, regardless of _userId.
Use DefaultIfEmpty to perform an outer left join
from g in db.group
join s in db.section on g.Id equals s.GroupId
join c in db.course on c.SectionId equals s.Id into courseGroup
from cg in courseGroup.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { g, s, c };
Your SQL's type is not [Group] (Type group would be: select [Group].* from ...), anyway if you want it like that, then in its simple form it would be:
var result = db.Groups.Where( g => g.Sections.Any() );
However, if you really wanted to convert your SQL, then:
var result = from g in db.Groups
from s in g.Sections
from c in s.Courses.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new {...};
Even this would do:
var result = from g in db.Groups
select new {...};
Hint: In a well designed database with relations, you very rarely need to use join keyword. Instead use navigational properties.
I have referenced numerous questions on this site related to calculated fields and ViewModels, but I can't seem to extrapolate from examples given. I hope that laying out a specific scenario would allow someone to pin point what I can't see. I am new to WebApp design in general. Please take that into consideration. Also, if I've left off any relevant information, please let me know and I will update the question.
Here is the scenario:
I have a complex query that is spanning multiple tables to return data used in calculations. Specifically, I store units for a recipe converted to a base unit and then convert the quantity to the units specified by the user.
I am using AutoMapper to map from entities to ViewModels and vice versa, but I am not sure how to handle the calculated values. Especially with the nested ViewModel Collection thrown into the mix.
Option 1
Do I return an autonomous set of data? Like the following... and then somehow use AutoMapper to do the mapping? Perhaps I would need to do the mapping manually, which I haven't found a solid example which includes nested ViewModels. At this point, I'm not even sure if the following code handles the nested collection correctly for the autonomous data.
var userId = User.Identity.GetUserId();
var recipes = from u in db.Users.Where(u => u.Id == userId)
from c in db.Categories
from r in db.Recipes
join ur in db.UserRecipes.Where(u => u.UserId == userId) on r.Id equals ur.RecipeId
join mus in db.MeasUnitSystems on ur.RecipeYieldUnitSysId equals mus.Id
join muc in db.MeasUnitConvs on mus.Id equals muc.UnitSysId
join mu in db.MeasUnits on mus.UnitId equals mu.Id
join msy in db.MeasUnitSymbols on mu.Id equals msy.UnitId
select new
{
Id = c.Id,
ParentId = c.ParentId,
Name = c.Name,
Descr = c.Descr,
Category1 = c.Category1,
Category2 = c.Category2,
Recipes = new
{
Id = r.Id,
Title = r.Title,
Descr = r.Descr,
Yield = String.Format("{0} {1}", ((r.Yield * muc.UnitBaseConvDiv / muc.UnitBaseConvMult) - muc.UnitBaseConvOffset), msy.Symbol)
}
};
Option 2
Another option that crossed my mind was to return the entities and use AutoMapper as I normally would. Then iterate through the collections and perform the calculations there. I feel like I could make this work, but it seems inefficient to me because it would result in many queries back to the database.
Option 3
???? I can't think of any other method to do this. But, please, if you have suggestions, I am more than willing to hear them.
Relevant Data
Here is the query returning the data I want in SQL Server (more or less).
declare #uid as nvarchar(128) = 'da5435ae-5198-4690-b502-ea3723a9b217'
SELECT c.[Name] as [Category]
,r.Title
,r.Descr
,(r.Yield*rmuc.UnitBaseConvDiv/rmuc.UnitBaseConvMult)-rmuc.UnitBaseConvOffset as [Yield]
,rmsy.Symbol
FROM Category as c
inner join RecipeCat as rc on c.Id = rc.CategoryId
inner join Recipe as r on rc.RecipeId = r.Id
inner join UserRecipe as ur on r.Id = ur.RecipeId and ur.UserId = #uid
inner join MeasUnitSystem as rmus on ur.RecipeYieldUnitSysId = rmus.Id
inner join MeasUnitConv as rmuc on rmus.Id = rmuc.UnitSysId
inner join MeasUnit as rmu on rmus.UnitId = rmu.Id
inner join MeasUnitSymbol as rmsy on rmu.Id = rmsy.UnitId
inner join UserUnitSymbol as ruus on rmsy.UnitId = ruus.UnitId and rmsy.SymIndex = ruus.UnitSymIndex and ruus.UserId = #uid
ViewModels
public class CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int ParentId { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Category")]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Description")]
public string Descr { get; set; }
public ICollection<CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel> Category1 { get; set; }
public CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel Category2 { get; set; }
public ICollection<RecipeIndexViewModel> Recipes { get; set; }
}
public class RecipeIndexViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Recipe")]
public string Title { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Description")]
public string Descr { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "YieldUnit")]
public string Yield { get; set; }
}
UPDATE 2/10/2018
I found an answer here that does a very good job of explaining exactly what I'm looking at. Particularly under the A Better solution ? section. Mapping queries directly to my ViewModels looks like it would allow me to get my calculated values as well. Problem is, the example given is once again too simplistic.
He gives the following DTO's
public class UserDto
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public UserTypeDto UserType { set; get; }
}
public class UserTypeDto
{
public int Id { set; get; }
public string Name { set; get; }
}
And does the following for mapping:
var users = dbContext.Users.Select(s => new UserDto
{
Id = s.Id,
Name = s.Name,
UserType = new UserTypeDto
{
Id = s.UserType.Id,
Name = s.UserType.Name
}
});
Now what if the UserDTO looked like this:
public class UserDto
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public ICollection<UserTypeDto> UserTypes { set; get; }
}
How would the mapping be done if the UserTypes were a collection?
Update 2/13/2018
I feel I am making progress, but am currently headed in the wrong direction. I found this and came up with the following (which currently errors because of the method call in the linq query):
*Note: I removed Category2 from the ViewModel as I found it was not needed and only complicated this further.
query inside index controller method
IEnumerable<CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel> recipesVM = db.Categories
.Where(x => x.ParentId == null)
.Select(x => new CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel()
{
Id = x.Id,
ParentId = x.ParentId,
Name = x.Name,
Descr = x.Descr,
Category1 = MapCategoryRecipeIndexViewModelChildren(x.Category1),
Recipes = x.Recipes.Select(y => new RecipeIndexViewModel()
{
Id = y.Id,
Title = y.Title,
Descr = y.Descr
})
});
Recursive Method
private static IEnumerable<CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel> MapCategoryRecipeIndexViewModelChildren(ICollection<Category> categories)
{
return categories
.Select(c => new CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel
{
Id = c.Id,
ParentId = c.ParentId,
Name = c.Name,
Descr = c.Descr,
Category1 = MapCategoryRecipeIndexViewModelChildren(c.Category1),
Recipes = c.Recipes.Select(r => new RecipeIndexViewModel()
{
Id = r.Id,
Title = r.Title,
Descr = r.Descr
})
});
}
At this point, I don't even have the calculations I require, but that doesn't matter until I get this working (small steps). I quickly discovered you can't really call a method inside a Linq Query. Then a thought occurs to me, if I need to force the Linq Query to execute and then perform all the mapping on the in memory data, then I would essentially be doing the same thing as Option 2 (above), but I could perform the calculations within the ViewModel. This is the solution I will pursue and will keep everyone posted.
You have to iterate over UserType Collection and map the value to UserType dto's collection.
Use this code.
var users = dbContext.Users.Select(s => new UserDto
Id = s.Id,
Name = s.FullName,
UserType = s.UserType.Select(t => new UserTypeDto
{
Id = t.Id,
Name = t.Name
}).ToList()
Hope this will help.
I got it working! ...I think. ...Maybe. If anything, I'm querying the data, mapping it to my ViewModels and I have the calculations too. I do have additional questions, but they are a lot more specific. I will layout the solution I followed and where I think it requires work below.
I basically implemented my Option 2 from above, but instead of iterating through the collections, I just performed the calculations within the ViewModels.
Controller Method
public ActionResult Index()
{
var userId = User.Identity.GetUserId();
var recipes = db.Categories.Where(u => u.Users.Any(x => x.Id == userId))
.Include(c => c.Category1)
.Include(r => r.Recipes
.Select(u => u.UserRecipes
.Select(s => s.MeasUnitSystem.MeasUnitConv)))
.Include(r => r.Recipes
.Select(u => u.UserRecipes
.Select(s => s.MeasUnitSystem.MeasUnit.MeasUnitSymbols)));
IEnumerable<CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel> recipesVM = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<Category>, IEnumerable<CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel>>(recipes.ToList());
return View(recipesVM);
}
View Models
public class CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int ParentId { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Category")]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Description")]
public string Descr { get; set; }
public ICollection<CategoryRecipeIndexViewModel> Category1 { get; set; }
public ICollection<RecipeIndexViewModel> Recipes { get; set; }
}
public class RecipeIndexViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Recipe")]
public string Title { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Description")]
public string Descr { get; set; }
public double Yield { get; set; }
public ICollection<UserRecipeIndexViewModel> UserRecipes { get; set; }
[Display(Name = "Yield")]
public string UserYieldUnit
{
get
{
return System.String.Format("{0} {1}", ((Yield *
UserRecipes.FirstOrDefault().MeasUnitSystem.MeasUnitConv.UnitBaseConvDiv /
UserRecipes.FirstOrDefault().MeasUnitSystem.MeasUnitConv.UnitBaseConvMult) -
UserRecipes.FirstOrDefault().MeasUnitSystem.MeasUnitConv.UnitBaseConvOffset).ToString("n1"),
UserRecipes.FirstOrDefault().MeasUnitSystem.MeasUnit.MeasUnitSymbols.FirstOrDefault().Symbol);
}
}
}
public class UserRecipeIndexViewModel
{
public MeasUnitSystemIndexViewModel MeasUnitSystem { get; set; }
}
public class MeasUnitSystemIndexViewModel
{
public MeasUnitIndexViewModel MeasUnit { get; set; }
public MeasUnitConvIndexViewModel MeasUnitConv { get; set; }
}
public class MeasUnitIndexViewModel
{
public ICollection<MeasUnitSymbolIndexViewModel> MeasUnitSymbols { get; set; }
}
public class MeasUnitConvIndexViewModel
{
public double UnitBaseConvMult { get; set; }
public double UnitBaseConvDiv { get; set; }
public double UnitBaseConvOffset { get; set; }
}
public class MeasUnitSymbolIndexViewModel
{
public string Symbol { get; set; }
}
This appears to be working, but I know it needs some work.
For instance, the relation shown between the Recipe and UserRecipe shows one to many. In reality, if the UserRecipe were filtered by the current user, the relationship would be one to one. Also, the same goes for the MeasUnit and the MeasUnitSymbol entities. Currently, I'm relying on the FirstOrDefault of those collections to actually perform the calculations.
Also, I have seen numerous posts that state that calculations should not be done in the View Models. Except for some who say it's okay if it is only a requirement of the View.
Last I will say that paying attention to variable names within the ViewModels would have saved me some headaches. And I thought I knew how to utilize Linq Queries, but had issues with the data returned. It was easier to rely on the eager loading provided by Entity Framework to bring back the hierarchical data structure needed, versus the flat table structures I'm used to working with.
I'm still new to a lot of this and wrapping my head around some of the quirks of MVC and Entity Framework leaves me brain dead after a few hours, but I will continue to optimize and adopt better programming methods as I go.
Get all the NWatchRelation records from the DBContext that overlap those in the relationsCollection.
The same Id, RelatedNodeId, and RelationType (enum: int) should be what's considered a match.
public class NWatchRelation : INWatchRelation
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int NodeId { get; set; }
public NWatchNode Node { get; set; }
public int RelatedNodeId { get; set; }
public NWatchNode RelatedNode { get; set; }
public NWatch.NWatchRelationType RelationType { get; set; }
}
INWatchRelation[] relationsCollection = GetRelations();
You can do a LINQ join between these 2 collections.
var result = from a in db.NWatchRelations.AsEnumerable()
join b in relationsCollection on a.RelatedNodeId equals b.RelatedNodeId
&& a.Id equals b.Id
&& a.RelationType equals b.RelationType
select a;
The only way you can do that fully in LINQ to Entities is to manually compose UNION ALL query by using Queryable.Concat like this:
IQueryable<NWatchRelation> query = null;
foreach (var relation in relationsCollection)
{
var m = relation;
var subQuery = db.NWatchRelations
.Where(r => r.Id == m.Id
&& r.RelatedNodeId == m.RelatedNodeId
&& r.RelationType == m.RelationType);
query = query == null ? subQuery : query.Concat(subQuery);
}
But please note that it's a limited approach and will not work if the relationsCollection is big.
You could create a kind of unique key using the three values:
//To create a unique key (an string, which is a primitive type) combining the three values
var keys=relationsCollection.Select(e=>e.Id+"-"+e.RelatedNodeId+"-"+ ((int)e.RelationType)).Distinct();
var query=db.NWatchRelations.Where(r=>keys.Any(k=>k == (SqlFunctions.StringConvert((double)r.Id)+"-"+
SqlFunctions.StringConvert((double)r.RelatedNodeId )+"-"+
SqlFunctions.StringConvert((double)((int)r.RelationType)) ));
If your NWatchRelations table doesn't have many rows or relationsCollection is a small collection, please, use one of the alternatives that were proposed earlier at your convinience.
Also you can have the directly linked like this
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public NWatchRelation()
{
this.INWatchRelation = new HashSet<INWatchRelation>();
}
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
public virtual ICollection<INWatchRelation> INWatchRelation { get; set; }
But the entiry relation must be liked like this in order to work properly
Then you could select/list it like this
db.NWatchRelation.INWatchRelation.ToList();