We Keep Coding

C# .Net where condition

I have this code to select the city for each person whose Id matches from the list of cities:
public List<PersonelDto> MapPersonelDto(List<Personel> personels,List<City> cities)
{
var result = new List<PersonelDto>();
foreach (var item in personels)
{
var personel = new PersonelDto
{
Id = item.Id,
Maaş = item.Salary,
MedeniHal = item.MartialStatus,
Meslek = item.Job,
Soyisim = item.LastName,
Şehir = (from s in cities where s.Id == item.CityId select s.name).ToString()
};
result.Add(personel);
}
return result;
}
But City's value come out like this:
System.Linq.Enumerable+WhereSelectListIterator`2[Personnel_Registration.City,System.String]
How can I fix this?

The error is because there's nothing in the type system metadata to guarantee you won't have more than one city match, and so the result of the expression is a potential collection of 0, 1, or more cities. What you see is the result of calling .ToString() on that collection.
To fix it, you can do this:
public IEnumerable<PersonelDto> MapPersonelDto(IEnumerable<Personel> personels, IEnumerable<City> cities)
{
return personels.Select( p => {
new PersonelDto() {
Id = item.Id,
Maaş = item.Salary,
MedeniHal = item.MartialStatus,
Meslek = item.Job,
Soyisim = item.LastName,
Şehir = string.Join(",", cities.Where(c => c.Id == p.CityId).Select(c=> c.name));
}
});
}
Or, if you're confident you only want one city, you could do this:
public IEnumerable<PersonelDto> MapPersonelDto(IEnumerable<Personel> personels, IEnumerable<City> cities)
{
return personels.Select( p => {
new PersonelDto() {
Id = item.Id,
Maaş = item.Salary,
MedeniHal = item.MartialStatus,
Meslek = item.Job,
Soyisim = item.LastName,
Şehir = cities.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Id == p.CityId)?.name;
}
});
}
Note the complete lack of Lists. You really ought to get out of the habit of using List<T> everywhere, and instead let things remain as an IEnumerable<T> as much as possible. This can make your code faster and MUCH more efficient with RAM use.
Another benefit is it makes your code more flexible. For example, you can still pass the existing Lists to this new method. And if for some reason you need the result to be a List<> for the next method call (hint: you probably don't really need this at all) you can always add a .ToList() after calling the method. But, again, don't do that unless you really have to!

from s in cities where s.Id == item.CityId select s.name
return an IEnumerable - there might be more than one city
do instead
Şehir = (from s in cities where s.Id == item.CityId select s.name).FirstOrDefault().ToString()
which selects the first element
Note that this assumes that there is always a matching city. If not then you should supply a default value
Şehir = (from s in cities where s.Id == item.CityId select s.name).FirstOrDefault("unknow city").ToString()

C# LINQ - Comparing a IEnumerable<string> against an anonmyous list?

The basic question
I have:
IEnumerable<string> listA
var listB (this is an anonymous list generated by a LINQ query)
I want to query a list of objects that contain listA to see if they match to listB:
someObjectList.Where(x => x.listA == listB)
The comparison doesn't work - so how do I ensure that both lists are the same type for comparison?
The detailed question
I am grouping a larger list into a subset that contains a name and related date(s).
var listGroup = from n in list group n by new
{ n.NAME } into d
select new
{
NAME = d.Key.NAME, listOfDates = from x in d select new
{ Date = x.DATE } };
I have a object to hold the values for further processing:
class SomeObject
{
public SomeObject()
{
_listOfDates = new List<DateTime>();
}
private IEnumerable<DateTime> _listOfDates;
public IEnumerable<DateTime> ListOfDates
{
get { return _listOfDates; }
set { _listOfDates = value; }
}
}
I am then iterating over the listGroup and adding into a generic List<> of SomeObject:
foreach(var item in listGroup)
{
SomeObject so = new SomeObject();
// ...do some stuff
if (some match occurs then add into List<SomeObject>)
}
As I iterate through then I want to check the existing List<SomeOjbect> for matches:
var record = someObjectList.Where(x => x.NAME == item.NAME &&
x.ListOfDates == item.listOfDates)
.SingleOrDefault();
The problem is that comparing x.ListOfDates against item.listOfDates doesn't work.
There is no compiler error but I suspect that the returned value lists are different. How to I get the lists to commonize so they can be compared?
Update #1
This seems to work to get the listOfDates into a similar format:
IEnumerable<DateTime> tempList = item.listOfDates.Select(x => x.DATE).ToList()
Then I followed the 'SequenceEqual' suggestion from #Matt Burland

You can just compare one IEnumerable<DateTime> to another IEnumerable<DateTime>, you need to compare the sequence. Luckily, there's Enumerable.SequenceEquals (in both static and extension method flavors) which should work here.
So something like:
var record = someObjectList
.Where(x => x.NAME == item.NAME && x.ListOfDates.SequenceEquals(item.listOfDates))
.SingleOrDefault();

Create a new anonymous type list to union onto existing anonymous type list

I have a list of anonymous types that I get from my database:
var takenChannels = (from b in bq.GetStuff(db)
where b.RecordType == "H" && b.TourStartDateTime.Date == date
select new { Start = b.TourStartDateTime, End = b.TourEndDateTime, Channel = b.RadioChannel, TourArea = b.TourArea }).ToList();
Then I use this list info to do some stuff in a foreach loop. I want to add to this list a new anonymous item for when I come back round in the loop.
Something like:
takenChannels.Union{new[] { new{Start = DateTime.Now, End = DateTime.Now.AddDays(1), Channel = 25, TourArea = "Area" }});
Obviously this doesn't work. How do I do it?
Edit 1:
takenChannels.Add(new { Start = s, End = e, Channel = channel, TourArea = booking.TourArea });
This is the closest I've got so far (Thanks to Daniel)... but the error I get is:
Error 6 Argument 1: cannot convert from 'AnonymousType#2' to 'AnonymousType#1'

This answer might be a bit late, but since this is the question I found when Googling for the same problem, I think I should complete it with a working answer.
There is no problem to Union multiple times over anonymous types. It is important that all properties are declared in all instances and that they have the same data type. if not, you get the error above.
In your specific case, does the database perhaps return TourStartDateTime or TourEndDateTime as DateTime??
Is RadioChannel an int from the database or perhaps an int? or string?
Is TourArea a string in the database?
Just make sure the data types match and you should be fine. Below is a working snippet of code I use in my own program:
var regions = (
new[] { new { Id = "-1", Name = "---", Pattern = (string)null } }
).Union(
from x in db.Userlists where x.ListType == 2 select new { Id = x.UserlistID.ToString(), Name = x.Name, Pattern = (string)null }
).Union(
from x in db.Lookups where x.Category == "Stock" select new { Id = x.Key, Name = x.Key, Pattern = x.Value }
).ToArray();

You can simply Add to the list:
takenChannels.Add(new { Start = ... });

Is there any way to reduce duplication in these two linq queries

Building a bunch of reports, have to do the same thing over and over with different fields
public List<ReportSummary> ListProducer()
{
return (from p in Context.stdReports
group p by new { p.txt_company, p.int_agencyId }
into g
select new ReportSummary
{
PKi = g.Key.int_agencyId,
Name = g.Key.txt_company,
Sum = g.Sum(foo => foo.lng_premium),
Count = g.Count()
}).OrderBy(q => q.Name).ToList();
}
public List<ReportSummary> ListCarrier()
{
return (from p in Context.stdReports
group p by new { p.txt_carrier, p.int_carrierId }
into g
select new ReportSummary
{
PKi = g.Key.int_carrierId,
Name = g.Key.txt_carrier,
Sum = g.Sum(foo => foo.lng_premium),
Count = g.Count()
}).OrderBy(q => q.Name).ToList();
}
My Mind is drawing a blank on how i might be able to bring these two together.

It looks like the only thing that changes are the names of the grouping parameters. Could you write a wrapper function that accepts lambdas specifying the grouping parameters? Or even a wrapper function that accepts two strings and then builds raw T-SQL, instead of using LINQ?
Or, and I don't know if this would compile, can you alias the fields in the group statement so that the grouping construct can always be referenced the same way, such as g.Key.id1 and g.Key.id2? You could then pass the grouping construct into the ReportSummary constructor and do the left-hand/right-hand assignment in one place. (You'd need to pass it as dynamic though, since its an anonymous object at the call site)

You could do something like this:
public List<ReportSummary> GetList(Func<Record, Tuple<string, int>> fieldSelector)
{
return (from p in Context.stdReports
group p by fieldSelector(p)
into g
select new ReportSummary
{
PKi = g.Key.Item2
Name = g.Key.Item1,
Sum = g.Sum(foo => foo.lng_premium),
Count = g.Count()
}).OrderBy(q => q.Name).ToList();
}
And then you could call it like this:
var summary = GetList(rec => Tuple.Create(rec.txt_company, rec.int_agencyId));
or:
var summary = GetList(rec => Tuple.Create(rec.txt_carrier, rec.int_carrierId));
Of course, you'll want to replace Record with whatever type Context.stdReports is actually returning.
I haven't checked to see if that will compile, but you get the idea.

Since all that changes between the two queries is the group key, parameterize it. Since it's a composite key (has more than one value within), you'll need to create a simple class which can hold those values (with generic names).
In this case, to parameterize it, make the key selector a parameter to your function. It would have to be an expression and the method syntax to get this to work. You could then generalize it into a function:
public class GroupKey
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
private IQueryable<ReportSummary> GetReport(
Expression<Func<stdReport, GroupKey>> groupKeySelector)
{
return Context.stdReports
.GroupBy(groupKeySelector)
.Select(g => new ReportSummary
{
PKi = g.Key.Id,
Name = g.Key.Name,
Sum = g.Sum(report => report.lng_premium),
Count = g.Count(),
})
.OrderBy(summary => summary.Name);
}
Then just make use of this function in your queries using the appropriate key selectors.
public List<ReportSummary> ListProducer()
{
return GetReport(r =>
new GroupKey
{
Id = r.int_agencyId,
Name = r.txt_company,
})
.ToList();
}
public List<ReportSummary> ListCarrier()
{
return GetReport(r =>
new GroupKey
{
Id = r.int_carrierId,
Name = r.txt_carrier,
})
.ToList();
}
I don't know what types you have mapped for your entities so I made some assumptions. Use whatever is appropriate in your case.

LINQ Combine Queries

I have two collections of objects of different type. Lets call them type ALPHA and type BRAVO. Each of these types has a property that is the "ID" for the object. No ID is duplicated within the class, so for any given ID, there is at most one ALPHA and one BRAVO instance. What I need to do is divide them into 3 categories:
Instances of the ID in ALPHA which do not appear in the BRAVO collection;
Instances of the ID in BRAVO which do not appear in the ALPHA collection;
Instances of the ID which appear in both collections.
In all 3 cases, I need to have the actual objects from the collections at hand for subsequent manipulation.
I know for the #3 case, I can do something like:
var myCorrelatedItems = myAlphaItems.Join(myBravoItems, alpha => alpha.Id, beta => beta.Id, (inner, outer) => new
{
alpha = inner,
beta = outer
});
I can also write code for the #1 and #2 cases which look something like
var myUnmatchedAlphas = myAlphaItems.Where(alpha=>!myBravoItems.Any(bravo=>alpha.Id==bravo.Id));
And similarly for unMatchedBravos. Unfortunately, this would result in iterating the collection of alphas (which may be very large!) many times, and the collection of bravos (which may also be very large!) many times as well.
Is there any way to unify these query concepts so as to minimize iteration over the lists? These collections can have thousands of items.

If you are only interested in the IDs,
var alphaIds = myAlphaItems.Select(alpha => alpha.ID);
var bravoIds = myBravoItems.Select(bravo => bravo.ID);
var alphaIdsNotInBravo = alphaIds.Except(bravoIds);
var bravoIdsNotInAlpha = bravoIds.Except(alphaIds);
If you want the alphas and bravos themselves,
var alphaIdsSet = new HashSet<int>(alphaIds);
var bravoIdsSet = new HashSet<int>(bravoIds);
var alphasNotInBravo = myAlphaItems
.Where(alpha => !bravoIdsSet.Contains(alpha.ID));
var bravosNotInAlpha = myBravoItems
.Where(bravo => !alphaIdsSet.Contains(bravo.ID));
EDIT:
A few other options:
The ExceptBy method from MoreLinq.
The Enumerable.ToDictionary method.
If both types inherit from a common type (e.g. an IHasId interface), you could write your own IEqualityComparer<T> implementation; Enumerable.Except has an overload that accepts an equality-comparer as a parameter.

Sometimes LINQ is not the answer. This is the kind of problem where I would consider using a HashSet<T> with a custom comparer to reduce the work of performing set operations. HashSets are much more efficient at performing set operations than lists - and (depending on the data) can reduce the work considerably:
// create a wrapper class that can accomodate either an Alpha or a Bravo
class ABItem {
public Object Instance { get; private set; }
public int Id { get; private set; }
public ABItem( Alpha a ) { Instance = a; Id = a.Id; }
public ABItem( Bravo b ) { Instance = b; Id = b.Id; }
}
// comparer that compares Alphas and Bravos by id
class ABItemComparer : IComparer {
public int Compare( object a, object b ) {
return GetId(a).Compare(GetId(b));
}
private int GetId( object x ) {
if( x is Alpha ) return ((Alpha)x).Id;
if( x is Bravo ) return ((Bravo)x).Id;
throw new InvalidArgumentException();
}
}
// create a comparer based on comparing the ID's of ABItems
var comparer = new ABComparer();
var hashAlphas =
new HashSet<ABItem>(myAlphaItems.Select(x => new ABItem(x)),comparer);
var hashBravos =
new HashSet<ABItem>(myBravoItems.Select(x => new ABItem(x)),comparer);
// items with common IDs in Alpha and Bravo sets:
var hashCommon = new HashSet<Alpha>(hashAlphas).IntersectWith( hashSetBravo );
hashSetAlpha.ExceptWith( hashSetCommon ); // items only in Alpha
hashSetBravo.ExceptWith( hashSetCommon ); // items only in Bravo

Dictionary<int, Alpha> alphaDictionary = myAlphaItems.ToDictionary(a => a.Id);
Dictionary<int, Bravo> bravoDictionary = myBravoItems.ToDictionary(b => b.Id);
ILookup<string, int> keyLookup = alphaDictionary.Keys
.Union(bravoDictionary.Keys)
.ToLookup(x => alphaDictionary.ContainsKey(x) ?
(bravoDictionary.ContainsKey(x) ? "both" : "alpha") :
"bravo");
List<Alpha> alphaBoth = keyLookup["both"].Select(x => alphaDictionary[x]).ToList();
List<Bravo> bravoBoth = keyLookup["both"].Select(x => bravoDictionary[x]).ToList();
List<Alpha> alphaOnly = keyLookup["alpha"].Select(x => alphaDictionary[x]).ToList();
List<Bravo> bravoOnly = keyLookup["bravo"].Select(x => bravoDictionary[x]).ToList();

Here is one possible LINQ solution that performs a full outer join on both sets and appends a property to them showing which group they belong to. This solution might lose its luster, however, when you try to separate the groups into different variables. It all really depends on what kind of actions you need to perform on these objects. At any rate this ran at (I thought) an acceptable speed (.5 seconds) for me on lists of 5000 items:
var q =
from g in
(from id in myAlphaItems.Select(a => a.ID).Union(myBravoItems.Select(b => b.ID))
join a in myAlphaItems on id equals a.ID into ja
from a in ja.DefaultIfEmpty()
join b in myBravoItems on id equals b.ID into jb
from b in jb.DefaultIfEmpty()
select (a == null ?
new { ID = b.ID, Group = "Bravo Only" } :
(b == null ?
new { ID = a.ID, Group = "Alpha Only" } :
new { ID = a.ID, Group = "Both" }
)
)
)
group g.ID by g.Group;
You can remove the 'group by' query or create a dictionary from this (q.ToDictionary(x => x.Key, x => x.Select(y => y))), or whatever! This is simply a way of categorizing your items. I'm sure there are better solutions out there, but this seemed like a truly interesting question so I thought I might as well give it a shot!

I think LINQ is not the best answer to this problem if you want to traverse and compare the minimum amount of times. I think the following iterative solution is more performant. And I believe that code readability doesn't suffer.
var dictUnmatchedAlphas = myAlphaItems.ToDictionary(a => a.Id);
var myCorrelatedItems = new List<AlphaAndBravo>();
var myUnmatchedBravos = new List<Bravo>();
foreach (Bravo b in myBravoItems)
{
var id = b.Id;
if (dictUnmatchedAlphas.ContainsKey(id))
{
var a = dictUnmatchedAlphas[id];
dictUnmatchedAlphas.Remove(id); //to get just the unmatched alphas
myCorrelatedItems.Add(new AlphaAndBravo { a = a, b = b});
}
else
{
myUnmatchedBravos.Add(b);
}
}
Definition of AlphaAndBravo:
public class AlphaAndBravo {
public Alpha a { get; set; }
public Bravo b { get; set; }
}