I need string conversion of an Expression Tree so
I create an Expression Tree and use ToString method like this
var exp = ((Expression<Func<UserDetailInfo, bool>>) (x => x.OperationID == operationId)).ToString();
but result is strange
x => (x.OperationID == value(TCS.Proxy.PermissionProxy+<>c__DisplayClass5).operationId)
TCS.Proxy.PermissionProxy is my class in WCF proxy project !!! (I send expression from client to proxy)
but when I create this Expression myself everything is good
var entity = Expression.Parameter(typeof(UserDetailInfo));
var constant = Expression.Constant(operationId);
var e = Expression.Equal(Expression.Property(entity, "OperationID"), constant);
var exp = Expression.Lambda<Func<UserDetailInfo, bool>>(e, entity).ToString();
and result is ok
Param_0 => (Param_0.OperationID == operationId) // I Need this
How I can use ToString() can generates result like above ?
Why two results is different ?
* I Convert Expression to String for transfer it from client to WCF service so I need correct string for convert in server side from string to Expression
This is because your right hand side member is not a constant, it is a captured variable. The TCS.Proxy.PermissionProxy+<>c__DisplayClass5 part means in the class TCS.Proxy.PermissionProxy it had to create 5 new classes that holds values that where passed in via variable capture and this specific lambda uses the 5th one it created.
Your code (You never show your function so I made some guesses)
namespace TCS.Proxy
{
class PermissionProxy
{
public void SomeFunction()
{
int operationId = 0;
var exp = ((Expression<Func<UserDetailInfo, bool>>) (x => x.OperationID == operationId)).ToString()
}
}
}
Is getting re-written to something similar (It's actually a lot different but this example gets the point across) to
namespace TCS.Proxy
{
public class PermissionProxy
{
private class c__DisplayClass5
{
public int operationId;
}
public void SomeFunction()
{
int operationId = 0;
var <>c__DisplayClass5 = new c__DisplayClass5();
<>c__DisplayClass5.operationId = operationId;
var exp = ((Expression<Func<UserDetailInfo, bool>>) (x => x.OperationID == <>c__DisplayClass5.operationId)).ToString()
}
}
}
Which is different than what you manually created. If you want to "unbox" these custom classes you will need to write up a ExpressionVisitor that will go through the expression and re-write it in to the form you want to go over the wire.
Guys I am up with evaluating a string mathematical expression.
First I imported the library
using System.Linq.Expressions;
Then in my codes I did,
Expression e = new Expression("(450*5)+((3.14*7)/50)*100");
double result = e.Evaluate();
however I get the error as
Cannot create an instance of the abstract class or interface 'System.Linq.Expressions.Expression'
Why the above is not working?
How can I evaluate this ?
In order to evaluate expressions like this in c#, you have to use Roslyn. Here's an example (I changed a piece of code take from here http://blogs.msdn.com/b/csharpfaq/archive/2011/12/02/introduction-to-the-roslyn-scripting-api.aspx):
using Roslyn.Scripting.CSharp;
namespace RoslynScriptingDemo {
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var engine = new ScriptEngine();
engine.Execute(#"System.Console.WriteLine((450*5)+((3.14*7)/50)*100);");
}
}
}
Expressions only let you to create a syntax tree from code:
Expression<Func<int,int,int>> add = (x, y) => x + y;
var res = add.Compilie()(2,3);
So you can't use string as a source for expression, you have to write it as a valid c# code.
I went for Ncalc.
I am posting my codes for future users who will be on same problems like me.
1.Download the Ncalc(Binaries)http://ncalc.codeplex.com/releases/view/73656
Reference the dll in your solution.(Right click > add reference > Browse > NCalc.dll)
In codes
Using NCalc;
3.May be used as
public Double Calculate(string argExpression)
{
//get the user passed string
string ExpressionToEvaluate = argExpression;
//pass string in the evaluation object declaration.
Expression z = new Expression(ExpressionToEvaluate);
//command to evaluate the value of the **************string expression
var result = z.Evaluate();
Double results = Convert.ToDouble(result.ToString());
return results;
}
Try to use NCalc:
Expression e = new Expression("(450*5)+((3.14*7)/50)*100");
double result = e.Evaluate();
http://ncalc.codeplex.com/
You can use Mathos Parser. It is a simple .NET Mathematical Expression parser.
So I've been playing with dynamically building expression trees lately and came across this method, which seems kinda odd. At first I thought "oh cool this is exactly what I need" after constantly writing code along the lines of
var left = member is FieldInfo ? Expression.Field(instance, (FieldInfo)member) : Expression.Property(instance, (PropertyInfo)member);
var right = ...
var assign = Expression.Assign(left, right);
Yes, I know there is Expression.PropertyOrField() call, but it does roundtrip back to reflection to find member by name, where as I typically already have MemberInfo instance.
So anyway, I thought Expression.Bind() would be useful to me, but it does something I don't really understand. Given the following code:
void Main()
{
var m = typeof(Foo).GetField("Bar");
Expression.Bind(m, Expression.Constant("")).Dump();
}
public class Foo
{
public string Bar;
}
it produces MemberAssignment expression Bar = "". But there is no instance and no static reference. How would I ever apply this expression to and instance of Foo? I can't find any example of this method being used.
Object-Initializer expressions.
Let's say you had:
public class Foo
{
public int Property { get; set; }
}
Then you could do:
var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(int), "i");
var newExpr = Expression.New(typeof(Foo));
var bindExprs = new[]
{
Expression.Bind(typeof(Foo).GetProperty("Property"), parameter)
// You can bind more properties here if you like.
};
var body = Expression.MemberInit(newExpr, bindExprs);
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<int, Foo>>(body, parameter);
which is something like:
i => new Foo { Property = i }
Old:
I can't help you solve the "performance issue" you are determined to solve (will using Expression.PropertyOrField really introduce a bottleneck in your application? I'm somewhat skeptical. You should determine this before optimizing prematurely) (EDIT: Apologies for incorrectly assuming that this was a perf optimization, and as you've found out yourself, Expression.MakeMemberAccess is what you need), but I can tell you what Expression.Bind is useful for.
Is it possible to evaluate the following in C# at runtime
I have a class that contains 3 properties (Field,Operator,Value)
rule.Field;
rule.Operator;
rule.Value;
this is my rule class...
Now I have a loop
foreach(item in items)
{
// here I want to create a dynamic expression to evaluate at runtime
// something like
if (item.[rule.field] [rule.operator] [rule.value])
{ do work }
}
I just don't know the syntax, or if its possible in C#, I know in JS its possible but that's not a compiled language.
Update
Essentially I want a way to eval(stringCode) or a better more supported way.
No, C# doesn't support anything like this directly.
The closest options are:
Create a full valid C# program and dynamically compile it with CSharpCodeProvider.
Build an expression tree, compile and execute it
Perform the evaluation yourself (this may actually be easiest, depending on your operators etc)
Disclaimer: I'm the owner of the project Eval Expression.NET
This library is close to being the JS Eval equivalent. You can almost evaluate and compile all the C# language.
Here is a simple example using your question, but the library goes way beyond this simple scenario.
int field = 2;
int value = 1;
string binaryOperator = ">";
string formula = "x " + binaryOperator + " y";
// For single evaluation
var value1 = Eval.Execute<bool>(formula, new { x = field, y = value });
// For many evaluation
var compiled = Eval.Compile<Func<int, int, bool>>(formula, "x", "y");
var value2 = compiled(field, value);
EDIT Answer comment:
Proprietary library to do simple evaluation? No, thanks
This library does not support only simple evaluation but almost all the C# languages. Allowing you to add dynamically a method, use async, linq, loop, etc., which is more than "to do simple evaluation"
The closest options solution provided by Jon Skeet are great but will surely take several days of development and testing to support all cases, depending on the operators. Surely this library helps some developers, but in some other scenarios, like yours, it could be done without it.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Can you try clarifying it a bit?
Are you wanting to to take a string expression and evaluate it at runtime in C#? If so the answer is no. C# does not support such types of dynamic evaluation.
You'd have to either use the CodeDOM libraries or create an Expression tree, compile it, and execute it. I think building up the expression tree is the best option.
Of course you could put in a switch statement on your operator, which is not bad because there is a limited number of operators you could use anyways.
Here's a way to do this with expression trees (written in LINQPad):
void Main()
{
var programmers = new List<Programmer>{
new Programmer { Name = "Turing", Number = Math.E},
new Programmer { Name = "Babbage", Number = Math.PI},
new Programmer { Name = "Lovelace", Number = Math.E}};
var rule0 = new Rule<string>() { Field = "Name", Operator = BinaryExpression.Equal, Value = "Turing" };
var rule1 = new Rule<double>() { Field = "Number", Operator = BinaryExpression.GreaterThan, Value = 2.719 };
var matched0 = RunRule<Programmer, string>(programmers, rule0);
matched0.Dump();
var matched1 = RunRule<Programmer, double>(programmers, rule1);
matched1.Dump();
var matchedBoth = matched0.Intersect(matched1);
matchedBoth.Dump();
var matchedEither = matched0.Union(matched1);
matchedEither.Dump();
}
public IEnumerable<T> RunRule<T, V>(IEnumerable<T> foos, Rule<V> rule) {
var fieldParam = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "f");
var fieldProp = Expression.Property (fieldParam, rule.Field);
var valueParam = Expression.Parameter(typeof(V), "v");
BinaryExpression binaryExpr = rule.Operator(fieldProp, valueParam);
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, V, bool>>(binaryExpr, fieldParam, valueParam);
var func = lambda.Compile();
foreach(var foo in foos) {
var result = func(foo, rule.Value);
if(result)
yield return foo;
}
}
public class Rule<T> {
public string Field { get; set; }
public Func<Expression, Expression, BinaryExpression> Operator { get; set; }
public T Value { get; set; }
}
public class Programmer {
public string Name { get; set; }
public double Number { get; set; }
}
A better design for you would be for your rule to apply the test itself (or to an arbitrary value)
By doing this with Func instances you will get the most flexibility, like so:
IEnumerable<Func<T,bool> tests; // defined somehow at runtime
foreach (var item in items)
{
foreach (var test in tests)
{
if (test(item))
{
//do work with item
}
}
}
then your specific test would be something like this for strong type checking at compile time:
public Func<T,bool> FooEqualsX<T,V>(V x)
{
return t => EqualityComparer<V>.Default.Equals(t.Foo, x);
}
For a reflective form
public Func<T,bool> MakeTest<T,V>(string name, string op, V value)
{
Func<T,V> getter;
var f = typeof(T).GetField(name);
if (f != null)
{
if (!typeof(V).IsAssignableFrom(f.FieldType))
throw new ArgumentException(name +" incompatible with "+ typeof(V));
getter= x => (V)f.GetValue(x);
}
else
{
var p = typeof(T).GetProperty(name);
if (p == null)
throw new ArgumentException("No "+ name +" on "+ typeof(T));
if (!typeof(V).IsAssignableFrom(p.PropertyType))
throw new ArgumentException(name +" incompatible with "+ typeof(V));
getter= x => (V)p.GetValue(x, null);
}
switch (op)
{
case "==":
return t => EqualityComparer<V>.Default.Equals(getter(t), value);
case "!=":
return t => !EqualityComparer<V>.Default.Equals(getter(t), value);
case ">":
return t => Comparer<V>.Default.Compare(getter(t), value) > 0;
// fill in the banks as you need to
default:
throw new ArgumentException("unrecognised operator '"+ op +"'");
}
}
If you wanted to be really introspective and handle any literal without knowing at compile time you could use the CSharpCodeProvider to compile a function assuming something like:
public static bool Check(T t)
{
// your code inserted here
}
This is of course a massive security hole so whoever can supply code for this must be fully trusted. Here is a somewhat limited implementation for your specific needs (no sanity checking at all)
private Func<T,bool> Make<T>(string name, string op, string value)
{
var foo = new Microsoft.CSharp.CSharpCodeProvider()
.CompileAssemblyFromSource(
new CompilerParameters(),
new[] { "public class Foo { public static bool Eval("+
typeof(T).FullName +" t) { return t."+
name +" "+ op +" "+ value
+"; } }" }).CompiledAssembly.GetType("Foo");
return t => (bool)foo.InvokeMember("Eval",
BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod ,
null, null, new object[] { t });
}
// use like so:
var f = Make<string>("Length", ">", "2");
For this to work with arbitrary types you would have to do a bit more reflection to find the target assembly for the type to reference it in the compiler parameters.
private bool Eval(object item, string name, string op, string value)
{
var foo = new Microsoft.CSharp.CSharpCodeProvider()
.CompileAssemblyFromSource(
new CompilerParameters(),
new[] { "public class Foo { public static bool Eval("+
item.GetType().FullName +" t) "+
"{ return t."+ name +" "+ op +" "+ value +"; } }"
}).CompiledAssembly.GetType("Foo");
return (bool)foo.InvokeMember("Eval",
BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod ,
null, null, new object[] { item });
}
All the above code is simply a proof of concept, it lacks sanity checking and has serious performance issues.
If you wanted to be even fancier you could use Reflection.Emit with DynamicMethod instances to do it (using proper operators rather than the default comparer instances) but this would require complex handling for types with overridden operators.
By making your check code highly generic you may include more tests in future as you need to. Essentially isolate the part of your code that cares only about a function from t -> true/false from the code that supplies these functions.
CSharpCodeProvider; switch statements that pick the proper different "operators"; the DLR... they are all ways you could do this; but they seem weird solutions to me.
How about just using delegates?
Assuming your Field and Value are numbers, declare something like this:
delegate bool MyOperationDelegate(decimal left, decimal right);
...
class Rule {
decimal Field;
decimal Value;
MyOperationDelegate Operator;
}
Now you can define your 'rule' as, for example, a bunch of lambdas:
Rule rule1 = new Rule;
rule1.Operation = (decimal l, decimal r) => { return l > r; };
rule1.Field = ...
You can make arrays of rules and apply them whichever way you wish.
IEnumerable<Rule> items = ...;
foreach(item in items)
{
if (item.Operator(item.Field, item.Value))
{ /* do work */ }
}
If Field and Values are not numbers, or the type depends on the specific rule, you can use object instead of decimal, and with a little bit of casting you can make it all work.
That's not a final design; it's just to give you some ideas (for example, you would likely have the class evaluate the delegate on its own via a Check() method or something).
You can retrieve the field by reflection. And then implement the operators as methods and uses reflection or some types of enum-delegate mapping to call the operators. The operators should have at least 2 parameters, the input value and the value you are using to test against with.
While it is true that you probably won't find an elegant way to evaluate full C# code on the fly without the use of dynamically compiling code (which is never pretty), you can almost certainly get your rules evaluated in short order using either the DLR (IronPython, IronRuby, etc) or an expression evaluator library that parses and executes a custom syntax. There is one, Script.NET, that provides a very similar syntax to C#.
Take a look here:Evaluating Expressions a Runtime in .NET(C#)
If you have the time / inclination to learn a little Python, then IronPython and the DLR will solve all your issues:
Extending your App with IronPython
I've tried to simplify this example, as the actual code I'm playing with is more complex. So while this example may seem silly, bear with me. Let's say I'm working with the AdventureWorks database and I decide I want to add a property called Blarg to the Product table that returns an expression that contains code I would like to use in several places:
public partial class Product
{
public Expression<Func<Product, string>> Blarg
{
get { return product => product.ProductModelID.HasValue ? "Blarg?" : "Blarg!"; }
}
}
What I want to do is create an expression expression tree, have it get the Expression from Product.Blarg, and group by the result. Something like this:
var productParameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(Product), "product");
// The Problem
var groupExpression = Expression.Lambda<Func<Product, string>>(
Expression.Invoke(
Expression.Property(productParameter, "Blarg"),
productParameter),
productParameter);
using (AdventureWorksDataContext db = new AdventureWorksDataContext())
{
var result = db.Products.GroupBy(groupExpression).ToList();
// Throws ArgumentException: "The argument 'value' was the wrong type.
// Expected 'System.Delegate'.
// Actual 'System.Linq.Expressions.Expression`1[System.Func`2[LINQ_Test.Product,System.String]]'."
}
Obviously groupExpression is incorrect (see the code comment for the exception), but I'm not sure how I should be doing it. What I thought I was saying is "get the Expression from the product.Blarg, execute it, and return the string result." I guess that's not what I'm actually saying there, though. I'm still trying to figure out expression trees. Any idea how I could pull this off?
When you call Expression.Invoke, the first argument must be an existing LambdaExpression - it can't be an Expression to a LambdaExpression. Or in other words: it isn't going to evaluate Product.Blarg per row and use a different sub-expression each time.
Instead, you would retrieve this lambda first, perhaps making it static and accessing it via reflection if you only know it by name:
var lambda = (LambdaExpression) typeof(Product)
.GetProperty("Blarg").GetValue(null,null);
And pass lambda in as the argument to Expression.Invoke; here's a fully working LINQ-to-Objects example showing this (via AsQueryable()):
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
public partial class Product
{
public static Expression<Func<Product, string>> Blarg
{
get { return product => product.ProductModelID.HasValue ? "Blarg?" : "Blarg!"; }
}
public int? ProductModelID { get; set; }
static void Main()
{
var lambda = (LambdaExpression)typeof(Product)
.GetProperty("Blarg").GetValue(null, null);
var productParameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(Product), "product");
// The Problem
var groupExpression = Expression.Lambda<Func<Product, string>>(
Expression.Invoke(
lambda,
productParameter),
productParameter);
var data = new[] {
new Product { ProductModelID = 123},
new Product { ProductModelID = null},
new Product { ProductModelID = 456},
};
var qry = data.AsQueryable().GroupBy(groupExpression).ToList();
}
}
var qry = data.AsQueryable().GroupBy(Blarg).ToList();
That works, same as Marc's code.
Note: Blarg is already correct, there is no reason to 're-invoke' it.