We Keep Coding

Split a list of objects into sub-lists of contiguous elements using LINQ?

I have a simple class Item:
public class Item
{
public int Start { get; set;}
public int Stop { get; set;}
}
Given a List<Item> I want to split this into multiple sublists of contiguous elements. e.g. a method
List<Item[]> GetContiguousSequences(Item[] items)
Each element of the returned list should be an array of Item such that list[i].Stop == list[i+1].Start for each element
e.g.
{[1,10], [10,11], [11,20], [25,30], [31,40], [40,45], [45,100]}
=>
{{[1,10], [10,11], [11,20]}, {[25,30]}, {[31,40],[40,45],[45,100]}}
Here is a simple (and not guaranteed bug-free) implementation that simply walks the input data looking for discontinuities:
List<Item[]> GetContiguousSequences(Item []items)
{
var ret = new List<Item[]>();
var i1 = 0;
for(var i2=1;i2<items.Length;++i2)
{
//discontinuity
if(items[i2-1].Stop != items[i2].Start)
{
var num = i2 - i1;
ret.Add(items.Skip(i1).Take(num).ToArray());
i1 = i2;
}
}
//end of array
ret.Add(items.Skip(i1).Take(items.Length-i1).ToArray());
return ret;
}
It's not the most intuitive implementation and I wonder if there is a way to have a neater LINQ-based approach. I was looking at Take and TakeWhile thinking to find the indices where discontinuities occur but couldn't see an easy way to do this.
Is there a simple way to use IEnumerable LINQ algorithms to do this in a more descriptive (not necessarily performant) way?
I set of a simple test-case here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/wrIa2J

I'm really not sure this is much better than your original, but for the purpose of another solution the general process is
Use Select to project a list working out a grouping
Use GroupBy to group by the above
Use Select again to project the grouped items to an array of Item
Use ToList to project the result to a list
public static List<Item[]> GetContiguousSequences2(Item []items)
{
var currIdx = 1;
return items.Select( (item,index) => new {
item = item,
index = index == 0 || items[index-1].Stop == item.Start ? currIdx : ++currIdx
})
.GroupBy(x => x.index, x => x.item)
.Select(x => x.ToArray())
.ToList();
}
Live example: https://dotnetfiddle.net/mBfHru
Another way is to do an aggregation using Aggregate. This means maintaining a final Result list and a Curr list where you can aggregate your sequences, adding them to the Result list as you find discontinuities. This method looks a little closer to your original
public static List<Item[]> GetContiguousSequences3(Item []items)
{
var res = items.Aggregate(new {Result = new List<Item[]>(), Curr = new List<Item>()}, (agg, item) => {
if(!agg.Curr.Any() || agg.Curr.Last().Stop == item.Start) {
agg.Curr.Add(item);
} else {
agg.Result.Add(agg.Curr.ToArray());
agg.Curr.Clear();
agg.Curr.Add(item);
}
return agg;
});
res.Result.Add(res.Curr.ToArray()); // Remember to add the last group
return res.Result;
}
Live example: https://dotnetfiddle.net/HL0VyJ

You can implement ContiguousSplit as a corutine: let's loop over source and either add item into current range or return it and start a new one.
private static IEnumerable<Item[]> ContiguousSplit(IEnumerable<Item> source) {
List<Item> current = new List<Item>();
foreach (var item in source) {
if (current.Count > 0 && current[current.Count - 1].Stop != item.Start) {
yield return current.ToArray();
current.Clear();
}
current.Add(item);
}
if (current.Count > 0)
yield return current.ToArray();
}
then if you want materialization
List<Item[]> GetContiguousSequences(Item []items) => ContiguousSplit(items).ToList();

Your solution is okay. I don't think that LINQ adds any simplification or clarity in this situation. Here is a fast solution that I find intuitive:
static List<Item[]> GetContiguousSequences(Item[] items)
{
var result = new List<Item[]>();
int start = 0;
while (start < items.Length) {
int end = start + 1;
while (end < items.Length && items[end].Start == items[end - 1].Stop) {
end++;
}
int len = end - start;
var a = new Item[len];
Array.Copy(items, start, a, 0, len);
result.Add(a);
start = end;
}
return result;
}

C# LINQ - SkipWhile() in reverse, without calling Reverse()?

In this code:
for (e = 0; e <= collection.Count - 2; e++)
{
var itm = collection.Read()
var itm_price = itm.Price
var forwards_satisfied_row = collection
.Skip(e + 1)
.SkipWhile(x => x.Price < ex_price)
.FirstOrDefault();
var backwards_satisfied_row = collection
.Reverse()
.Skip(collection.Count - e)
.SkipWhile(x => x.Price < ex_price)
.FirstOrDefault();
}
Suppose the collection contains millions of items and a Reverse() is too expensive, what would be the best way to achieve the same outcome as 'backwards_satisfied_row' ?
Edit:
For each item in the collection, it should find the first preceding item that matches the SkipWhile predicate.
For context I'm finding the distance a price extrema (minima or maxima) is from a horizontal clash with the price. This gives a 'strength' value for each Minima and Maxima, which determines the importance of it, and to help marry it up with extremas of a similar strength.
Edit 2
This chart shows the data in the reproc code below, note the dip in the middle at item #22, this item has a distance of 18.
Bear in mind this operation will be iterated millions of times.
So I'm trying not to read into memory, and to only evaluate the items needed.
When I run this on a large dataset r_ex takes 5 ms per row, whereas l_ex takes up to a second.
It might be tempting to iterate backwards and check that way, but there could be millions of previous records, being read from a binary file.
Many types of searches like Binary search wouldn't be practical here, since the values aren't ordered.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var dict_dists = new Dictionary<Int32, Int32>();
var dict = new Dictionary<Int32, decimal> {
{1, 410},{2, 474},{3, 431},
{4, 503},{5, 461},{6, 535},
{7, 488},{8, 562},{9, 508},
{10, 582},{11, 522},{12, 593},
{13, 529},{14, 597},{15, 529},
{16, 593},{17, 522},{18, 582},
{19, 510},{20, 565},{21, 492},
{22, 544},{23, 483},{24, 557},
{25, 506},{26, 580},{27, 524},
{28, 598},{29, 537},{30, 609},
{31, 543},{32, 612},{33, 542},
{34, 607},{35, 534},{36, 594},
{37, 518},{38, 572},{39, 496},
{40, 544},{41, 469},{42, 511},
{43, 437},{44, 474},{45, 404},
{46, 462},{47, 427},{48, 485},
{49, 441},{50, 507}};
var i = 0;
for (i = 0; i <= dict.Count - 2; i++)
{
var ele = dict.ElementAt(i);
var current_time = ele.Key;
var current_price = ele.Value;
var is_maxima = current_price > dict.ElementAt(i + 1).Value;
//' If ele.Key = 23 Then here = True
var shortest_dist = Int32.MaxValue;
var l_ex = new KeyValuePair<int, decimal>();
var r_ex = new KeyValuePair<int, decimal>();
if (is_maxima)
{
l_ex = dict.Reverse().Skip(dict.Count - 1 - i + 1).SkipWhile(x => x.Value < current_price).FirstOrDefault();
r_ex = dict.Skip(i + 1).SkipWhile(x => x.Value < current_price).FirstOrDefault();
}
else
{ // 'Is Minima
l_ex = dict.Reverse().Skip(dict.Count - 1 - i + 1).SkipWhile(x => x.Value > current_price).FirstOrDefault();
r_ex = dict.Skip(i + 1).SkipWhile(x => x.Value > current_price).FirstOrDefault();
}
if (l_ex.Key > 0)
{
var l_dist = (current_time - l_ex.Key);
if ( l_dist < shortest_dist ) {
shortest_dist = l_dist;
};
}
if (r_ex.Key > 0)
{
var r_dist = (r_ex.Key - current_time);
if ( r_dist < shortest_dist ) {
shortest_dist = r_dist;
};
}
dict_dists.Add(current_time, shortest_dist);
}
var dist = dict_dists[23];
}
Edit: As a workaround I'm writing a reversed temp file for the left-seekers.
for (i = file.count - 1; i >= 0; i += -1)
{
file.SetPointerToItem(i);
temp_file.Write(file.Read());
}

You could make it more efficient by selecting the precedent of each item in one pass. Lets make an extension method for enumerables that selects a precedent for each element:
public static IEnumerable<T> SelectPrecedent<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source,
Func<T, bool> selector)
{
T selectedPrecedent = default;
foreach (var item in source)
{
if (selector(item)) selectedPrecedent = item;
yield return selectedPrecedent;
}
}
You could then use this method, and select the precedent and the subsequent of each element by doing only two Reverse operations in total:
var precedentArray = collection.SelectPrecedent(x => x.Price < ex_price).ToArray();
var subsequentArray = collection.Reverse()
.SelectPrecedent(x => x.Price < ex_price).Reverse().ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < collection.Count; i++)
{
var current = collection[i];
var precedent = precedentArray[i];
var subsequent = subsequentArray[i];
// Do something with the current, precedent and subsequent
}

No need to do .Reverse() and then FirstOrDefault(), just use LastOrDefault(). Instead of Skip(collection.Count - e) use .Take(e) elements
var backwards_satisfied_row = collection
.SkipWhile(x => x.Price < ex_price) //Skip till x.Price < ex_price
.Skip(e+1) //Skip first e+1 elements
.LastOrDefault(); //Get Last or default value
You can make your code more efficient by storing collection and then just get FirstOrDefault() and LastOrDefault() for forwards_satisfied_row and backwards_satisfied_row respectively.
like,
for (e = 0; e <= collection.Count - 2; e++)
{
var itm = collection.Read()
var itm_price = itm.Price
var satisfied_rows = collection
.SkipWhile(x => x.Price < ex_price)
.Skip(e + 1)
.ToList();
var forwards_satisfied_row = satisfied_rows.FirstOrDefault();
var backwards_satisfied_row = satisfied_rows.LastOrDefault();
}

Check if string contains characters in certain order in C#r

I have a code that's working right now, but it doesn't check if the characters are in order, it only checks if they're there. How can I modify my code so the the characters 'gaoaf' are checked in that order in the string?
Console.WriteLine("5.feladat");
StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter("keres.txt");
sw.WriteLine("gaoaf");
string s = "";
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
s = zadatok[i].nev+zadatok[i].cim;
if (s.Contains("g") && s.Contains("a") && s.Contains("o") && s.Contains("a") && s.Contains("f") )
{
sw.WriteLine(i);
sw.WriteLine(zadatok[i].nev + zadatok[i].cim);
}
}
sw.Close();

You can convert the letters into a pattern and use Regex:
var letters = "gaoaf";
var pattern = String.Join(".*",letters.AsEnumerable());
var hasletters = Regex.IsMatch(s, pattern, RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
For those that needlessly avoid .*, you can also solve this with LINQ:
var ans = letters.Aggregate(0, (p, c) => p >= 0 ? s.IndexOf(c.ToString(), p, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase) : p) != -1;
If it is possible to have repeated adjacent letters, you need to complicate the LINQ solution slightly:
var ans = letters.Aggregate(0, (p, c) => {
if (p >= 0) {
var newp = s.IndexOf(c.ToString(), p, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
return newp >= 0 ? newp+1 : newp;
}
else
return p;
}) != -1;
Given the (ugly) machinations required to basically terminate Aggregate early, and given the (ugly and inefficient) syntax required to use an inline anonymous expression call to get rid of the temporary newp, I created some extensions to help, an Aggregate that can terminate early:
public static TAccum AggregateWhile<TAccum, T>(this IEnumerable<T> src, TAccum seed, Func<TAccum, T, TAccum> accumFn, Predicate<TAccum> whileFn) {
using (var e = src.GetEnumerator()) {
if (!e.MoveNext())
throw new Exception("At least one element required by AggregateWhile");
var ans = accumFn(seed, e.Current);
while (whileFn(ans) && e.MoveNext())
ans = accumFn(ans, e.Current);
return ans;
}
}
Now you can solve the problem fairly easily:
var ans2 = letters.AggregateWhile(-1,
(p, c) => s.IndexOf(c.ToString(), p+1, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase),
p => p >= 0
) != -1;

Why not something like this?
static bool CheckInOrder(string source, string charsToCheck)
{
int index = -1;
foreach (var c in charsToCheck)
{
index = source.IndexOf(c, index + 1);
if (index == -1)
return false;
}
return true;
}
Then you can use the function like this:
bool result = CheckInOrder("this is my source string", "gaoaf");
This should work because IndexOf returns -1 if a string isn't found, and it only starts scanning AFTER the previous match.

Find index of element from IQueryable

Hi I am trying to find the position of specific element from IQueryable. I dont want to covert to list then search for it because the process is heavy if the number of element is huge.
I tried .TakeWhile(x => x.ItemId.Equals(ItemId)) but it show me function not supported.
Below is how I doing it now using loop through the query. Is there any better approach for it?
IQueryable<CustomSearchResultItem> contextQueryable = context.GetQueryable<CustomSearchResultItem>().Where(query);
if (ItemId != ID.Null)
{
int i = 0;
foreach (var x in contextQueryable)
{
if(x.ItemId.Equals(ItemId))
{
Position = i;
break;
}
i++;
}
}

Something like this should work:
var contextQueryable = context.GetQueryable<CustomSearchResultItem>().Where(query).GetResults();
var result = contextQueryable.Select((x, i) => new { Item = x, Index = i })
.FirstOrDefault(itemWithIndex => itemWithIndex.Item.Document.ItemId.Guid == ItemId);
if (result != null)
index = result.Index;

What would be the LINQ solution for this query in c#?

I have a class RuleDetail:
public class RuleDetail
{
public int RuleDetailId;
public int StartYear;
}
I have a List of objects of type RuleDetail:
RuleDetailId=1, StartYear=0
RuleDetailId=2, StartYear=2
RuleDetailId=3, StartYear=4
RuleDetailId=4, StartYear=10
RuleDetailId=5, StartYear=13
RuleDetailId=6, StartYear=18
I will be given a number say x (x always >= 0); for that I need to find the RuleDetail object in the above List which matches these conditions:
Get the RuleDetail object where x equals to StartYear OR
Get the RuleDetail object of the max(StartYear) when StartYear < x
Assuming I have these variables
RuleDetail[] ruleDetails = null;
int x = -1;
// ruleDetails populated
// x populated
This is the code I have come up with:
bool found = false;
RuleDetail ruleDetail = null;
RuleDetail oldRuleDetail = null;
for (int i=0; i<ruleDetails.Length; i++)
{
if (ruleDetails[i].StartYear == x)
{
found = true;
ruleDetail = ruleDetails[i];
break;
}
else if (ruleDetails[i].StartYear > x)
{
found = true;
ruleDetail = oldRuleDetail;
break;
}
oldRuleDetail = ruleDetails[i];
}
if (!found)
{
ruleDetail = oldRuleDetail;
}
return ruleDetail;
The code is working ok. But how can I do this in LINQ?
Thanks

var output = ruleDetails.OrderBy(rule => rule.StartYear).Where(rule => rule.StartYear <= x).Last()
If the list is already in StartYear order then ....
var output = ruleDetails.Where(rule => rule.StartYear <= x).Last()

You can use
ruleDetails.FirstOrDefault(rd => rd.StartYear == x)
?? ruleDetails.Where(rd => rd.StartYear < x).OrderByDescending(rd => rd.StartYear).First();
which is a clear separation of your two requirements, but it is actually more concise to use
ruleDetails.Where(rd => rd.StartYear <= x).OrderByDescending(rd => rd.StartYear).First()

var res1 = (from a in ruleDetails where a.StartYear == x select a).First();
var res2 = (from a in ruleDetails orderby a.StartYear where a.StartYear < x select a).Last();

Here's a real simple LINQ snippet to accomplish what you're trying to do here. I'm writing this with the assumption that your list is ordered as that's what your current code suggests.
We'll first filter the list down to entries that are either the target year or less than it, then take the highest remaining element.
var filteredList = ruledetails.Where(r => r.StartYear <= targetYear);
return filteredList.Last;

It's kinda gross, but maybe something like:
var result = ruleDetails
.OrderBy(r => r.StartYear)
.FirstOrDefault(r => r.StartYear == x || r.StartYear == ruleDetails.Select(y => y.StartYear).Max());

(A) if the list is is initially sorted by StartYear, then
var result = ruleDetails.LastOrDefault(r => r.StartYear <= startYear);
(B) if the list is not sorted, then
var result = ruleDetails.Where(r => r.StartYear <= startYear)
.Aggregate((RuleDetail)null, (a, b) => a == null || a.StartYear < b.StartYear ? b : a);