Why can't an expression tree contain a named argument specification? - c#

Using AutoMapper, I hit a place where a named argument would've fit very nicely:
.ForMember(s => s.MyProperty, opt => opt.MapFrom(s => BuildMyProperty(s, isAdvanced: false)))
But the compiler yelled at me:
An expression tree may not contain a named argument specification
So I had to revert to:
.ForMember(s => s.MyProperty, opt => opt.MapFrom(s => BuildMyProperty(s, false)))
Does anyone know why the compiler disallows named arguments in this situation?

Consider the following:
static int M() { Console.Write("M"); return 1; }
static int N() { Console.Write("N"); return 2; }
static int Q(int m, int n) { return m + n; }
...
Func<int> f = ()=>Q(n : N(), m: M());
Expression<Func<int>> x = ()=>Q(n : N(), m: M());
Func<int> fx = x.Compile();
Console.WriteLine(f());
Console.WriteLine(fx());
You agree I hope that the last two lines must do exactly the same thing, right? Which is to print NM3.
Now, what expression tree library calls would you like the expression tree conversion to generate that ensure this? There are none! We are therefore faced with the following choices:
Implement the feature in the expression tree library. Add a transformation in the expression tree lowering engine that preserves the order of execution of the named arguments. Implement code in the Compile method that takes the execution order into account.
Make x = ()=>Q(n : N(), m: M()); actually be implemented as x = ()=>Q(M(), N()); and be incompatible with the non-expression-tree version.
Disallow named arguments in expression trees. Implement an error message to that effect.
(1) is nice, but expensive. (2) is a non-starter; we can't in good conscience introduce this kind of "gotcha". (3) is cheap but irritating.
We chose (3).

Related

How does linq Expression<TDelegate> assignment work on a language syntax level

TLDR: How does this compile?
class A{};
Expression<Func<A, int>> e = x => 24; // I don't understant what makes this compile
// and what happens at this assignment
What is the minimum class E to be able to compile E e = x => 24;
Some investigation
class E {};
E e = x => 24;
Visual Studio error is "Cannot convert lambda expression to type 'E' because it is not a delegate type" which is confusing because as far as I know a delegate is declared like this:
int delegate MyHandle();
and I didn't find any way of making a class a delegate.
Furthermore I have looked at the metadata of Expression -> LambdaExpression -> Expression<TDelegate> and wasn't able to identify what syntax/declaration makes Expression<TDelegate> act like a delegate.
Even more I have tried to create my own class E to mimic Expression<TDelegate> and I wasn't even able to compile the class
// basically a copy-paste of the metadata of `Expression<TDelegate>`
public sealed class E<TDelegate> : LambdaExpression
{
public TDelegate Compile() => default(TDelegate);
public TDelegate Compile(DebugInfoGenerator debugInfoGenerator) => default(TDelegate);
public TDelegate Compile(bool preferInterpretation) => default(TDelegate);
public Expression Update(Expression body, IEnumerable<ParameterExpression> parameters)
=> default(Expression);
protected override Expression Accept(ExpressionVisitor visitor) => null;
}
getting the error "'LambdaExpression' does not contain a constructor that takes 0 arguments"
Context (can be skipped):
I am getting started with Moq and because I just cannot take things for granted I am trying to understand how it works / how it is implemented. So this the first part of a series of inquiries about that.
I am now specifically trying to understand
public class A
{
public virtual int Foo() => throw new NotImplementedException();
public virtual int Bar() => throw new NotImplementedException();
}
var a = new Mock<A>();
a.Setup(x => x.Foo()).Returns(24); // ??
Console.WriteLine(a.Object.Foo());
I am trying to understand how the information "the method Foo" is passed to a
by passing that lambda? As far as I know a lambda is just a callable object, but somehow magically a knows the actual body of the lambda, i.e. will throw if you pass x => 24 or x => x.Foo() + x.Bar() but will accept x => x.Foo()
And I see that Setup parameter is of type Expression<Func<A, int>> hence my current question.
The C# specification gives special treatment to System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<D>; you cannot get the same treatment for your own type.
Expression trees permit lambda expressions to be represented as data structures instead of executable code. Expression trees are values of expression tree types of the form System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<D>, where D is any delegate type.
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/language-specification/types#expression-tree-types
This is a Lambda expression:
x => 24
According to MSDN Lambda expressions a lambda expression can be used to create a delegate or an expression tree type.
A Func<T, int> is a delegate function that takes a T as input and returns an int as output. If you assign the lambda expression above to this Func, then the compiler assumes that the x in the lambda expression is the input of the Func, and the part after the => is the output of the Func:
Func<string, int> func = x => x.Length;
Here x is expected to be a string, the part after the => may use, but is not obliged to use, this x to produce the output which has to be an int.
Func<int, int> func = x => x = -x;
Here x is expected to be an int. The return of the function is -x which is also an int.
Expression is the base class of all kinds of expressions. Expressions represent an operation that return a value. The most basic expressions are constants, they represent just a constant value, like 24. Other expressions might be additions, which take as input two expressions and have one output value. Other expressions are multiplication, negation, etc, which return a "number", or boolean expressions like AND OR NOR etc which return a Boolean.
A special kind of expression (so a derived class) is a LambdaExpression. A LambdaExpression usually represents a function-like object: it has zero or more input parameters and one output parameter. You assign a value to a LambdaExpression using a lambda expression (note the space in lambda expression!):
Expression<Func<string, int>> myExpression = x => x.Length;
I wrote earlier what the lambda expression x => x.Length does. the statement above creates an object of type System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<TDelegate>, which is of type LambdaExpression, hence you can assign it to an Expression<Func<string, int>>.
Your question:
What is the minimum class E to be able to compile E e = x => 24?
Your class E will need a constructor (or assignment operator) that accepts a System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<Func<MyClass, int> as parameter. If you don't use the x from your lambda expression MyClass can be object
Of course it is also accepted if the constructor takes any of the base classes, like Expression. However, if you do so you won't be able to used any of the Expression<Func<MyClass, int> functionality.
About your Mock code
Apparently you have a class A with two functions Foo and Bar, and you want to instantiate a Mock object to mock the functionality of A.
var myAmock = new Mock<A>();
myAmock.Setup(x => x.Foo()).Returns(24);
This says, that myAmock is an object that should mock behaviour of class A. Whenever someone calls the Foo function it should return a value of 24.

How to create a delegate from Expression<Func< , >>? (pass a parameter to the expression)?

I have the following filter :
Expression<Func<Employee, bool>> fromDateFilterFourDays = z => EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(z.FiringDate) >= EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(DateTime.Now.AddDays(-4));
Expression<Func<Employee, bool>> fromDateFilterSixDays = z => EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(z.FiringDate) >= EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(DateTime.Now.AddDays(-6));
How can I make a delegate out of this filter ?
I don't want to create a variable for each given number , i.e. for four days or six days .
My understanding is that you want to:
Take in two parameters to the delegate, the employee and the number of days.
Compile that expression into a delegate.
The first part can be done by adding the days to the parameter list:
Expression<Func<Employee, int, bool>> fromDateFilter = (z, n) => EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(z.FiringDate) >= EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(DateTime.Now.AddDays(n));
The second by using the Compile method:
var del = fromDateFilter.Compile();
// use it
del(employee, -4);
You can easily turn Expression<Func<...>> to Func<...> by using Compile method.
However, keep in mind that the sample expressions you provided will not work, because they are using Canonical Functions which are just placeholders for mapping the corresponding database SQL functions, and will throw exception if you try to actually evaluate them (which will happen with Func).
From the other side, if the question is actually how to parametrize the sample expressions, it could be like this
static Expression<Func<Employee, bool>> DateFilter(int currentDateOffset)
{
return e => EntityFunctions.TruncateTime(e.FiringDate) >= DateTime.Today.AddDays(currentDateOffset);
}
This is done by calling the Invoke() method:
fromDateFilterFourDays.Invoke(employee);
Or you can Compile() the expression to a func and then call the func:
var fromDateFilterFourDaysFunc = fromDateFilterFourDays.Compile();
fromDateFilterFourDaysFunc(employee);

What's the purpose of adding compiled Func methods together?

I have seen that is is possible to add compiled methods together.
Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> ln = c => c.lastname.Equals(_customer.lastName, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> fn = c => c.firstname.Equals(_customer.firstName, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> fdob = c => c.DOB.ToString("yyyyMMdd").Equals(_customer.DOB.ToString("yyyyMMdd"));
var filter = ln.Compile() + fn.Compile() + fdob.Compile();
Does it make sense to do this?
I would intend to use the filter in place of a lambda expression to filter a repository of customers:
IEnumerable<Customer> customersFound = _repo.Customers.Where(filter);
Depending on business logic, I may or may not add the three compiled methods together, but pick and choose, and possibly add more compiled methods as I go.
Can anyone explain if adding them together would build up a query string or not? Anyone got a better suggestion?
I could chain "Where" statements and use regular lambda expressions, but I am intrigued by what you might gain from compiling methods and adding them up!
That's a side-effect of the fact that the Compile method returns a delegate.
Internally, a delegate is a multicast-delegate, it can involve multiple chained references to methods.
The + is in this case just a quick way to chain them together. You can read more about combining delegates in the How to: Combine Delegates on MSDN.
Here's a LINQPad program that demonstrates:
void Main()
{
var filter = GetX() + GetY() + GetZ();
filter().Dump();
}
public int X() { Debug.WriteLine("X()"); return 1; }
public int Y() { Debug.WriteLine("Y()"); return 2; }
public int Z() { Debug.WriteLine("Z()"); return 3; }
public Func<int> GetX() { return X; }
public Func<int> GetY() { return Y; }
public Func<int> GetZ() { return Z; }
Output:
X()
Y()
Z()
3
Note that it thus seems to just disregard the return value from the first method calls, and returns only the last, although it fully calls the prior methods as well.
Note that the above code is similar to this:
void Main()
{
Func<int> x = X;
Func<int> y = Y;
Func<int> z = Z;
var filter = x + y + z;
filter().Dump();
}
public int X() { Debug.WriteLine("X()"); return 1; }
public int Y() { Debug.WriteLine("Y()"); return 2; }
public int Z() { Debug.WriteLine("Z()"); return 3; }
The short answer is thus that no, this does not do what you want it to do.
When you call Compile(), you are creating instances of type Func<Customer, bool>, which is a delegate.
Delegates overload the operator+ to return Multicast Delegates, which is what is happening here.
See MSDN: How to: Combine Delegates (Multicast Delegates)
So, no - adding them together would not build up a query string.
If this is for EF, you want to use Expression Trees, not Lambdas.
You can create and modify Expression Trees using the System.Linq.Expressions namespace:
MSDN: System.Linq.Expressions Namespace
and
MSDN: How to: Use Expression Trees to Build Dynamic Queries
It is a creative effort to chain predicates and too bad it does not work. The reason why has been explained excellently by Lasse and Nicholas (+2). But you also ask:
Anyone got a better suggestion?
The drawback of compiled expressions is that they're not expressions any more and thus, can't be used with IQueryables that are backed by SQL query providers (like linq to sql or linq to entities). I assume _repo.Customers is such an IQueryable.
If you want to chain expressions dynamically, LINQKit's PredicateBuilder is an excellent tool to do this.
var pred = Predicate.True<Customer>();
pred = pred.And(c => c.lastname.Equals(_customer.lastName, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
pred = pred.And(c => c.firstname.Equals(_customer.firstName, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
pred = pred.And(c => c.DOB.ToString("yyyyMMdd").Equals(_customer.DOB.ToString("yyyyMMdd"));
var customersFound = _repo.Customers.Where(pred.Expand());
This is what the Expand is for:
Entity Framework's query processing pipeline cannot handle invocation expressions, which is why you need to call AsExpandable on the first object in the query. By calling AsExpandable, you activate LINQKit's expression visitor class which substitutes invocation expressions with simpler constructs that Entity Framework can understand.
Or: without it an expression is Invoked, which causes an exception in EF:
The LINQ expression node type 'Invoke' is not supported in LINQ to Entities.
BTW. If you use linq to sql/entities you may as well use c.lastname == _customer.lastName because it is translated into SQL and the database collation will determine case sensitiveness.

Lambda expression syntax

Is it mandatory that lambda expression need to use when LINQ will be used, or are lambda expressions optional?
In lambda expressions, the sign => is always used. What does it mean?
customers.Where(c => c.City == "London");
Here c => is used but why?
What kind of meaning of using c =>. Please discuss in detail because I don't know lambda.
No, you don't have to use a lambda expression. For example, your Where example could be written as:
private static bool IsLondon(Customer customer)
{
return customer.City == "London";
}
...
var londoners = customers.Where(IsLondon);
That's assuming LINQ to Objects, of course. For LINQ to SQL etc, you'd need to build an expression tree.
As to why "=>" is always used in a lambda expression, that's simply because that's the way the operator is written - it's like asking why "+" is used for addition.
A lambda expression of "c => ..." is effectively giving the lambda expression a parameter called c... in this case generic type inference provides the type of c. The body provides either an action to perform or some calculation to return a value based on c.
A full-blown description of lambda expressions is beyond the scope of this answer. As a blatant plug for my book, however, they're covered in detail in chapter 9 of C# in Depth.
The lambda expression
c => c.City == "London"
is shorthand for something like
bool IsCustomerInLondon(Customer c)
{
return (c.City == "London");
}
It's just a very concise way of writing a simple function that returns a value. It's called an "anonymous function" because it's never assigned a name or a formal definition (the parameter types and the return type are inferred from the context).
(Actually, it's not just shorthand; lambda expressions are related to some other constructs called closures, which are very cool and powerful tools.)
Think about lambdas as anonymous of functions.
I'll try to explain it with following code.
public bool IsLondon(Customer customer)
{
return customer.City == "London";
}
Now we strip down function name and get rid of braces:
public bool Customer customer
return customer.City == "London";
We don't need return type, because compiler is able to deduce type from expression:
customer.City == "London";
In the same manner compiler knows about input type, so we don't need to specify it.
So basically, what we left with is
customer
return customer.City == "London";
And lambda syntax in c# is basically:
(parameter list) => "expression"
You can also write "multi-line" expressions, but then you have to surround your code with curly braces. Also you will need to use "return" statement, like you usually do.
Jon already answered,
but I'd like to add this.
In the example you have given, imagine Linq looping over all customers,
and c is simply a reference to each item in the enumerable:
var result = new List<Customer>();
foreach(var c in customers)
{
if (c.City == "London")
result.Add(c);
}
return result;
It's a variable like any other, it does not have to be a single named one,
but it's just a convention of some sort.
you do not need to use lambda expressions on Lİnq to sql or Entities; here is an alternative way of your code;
you code :
customers.Where(c => c.City == "London");
the other way;
var query = from cs in customers
where cs.City == "London"
select cs;
this is the another way. it is up to you.
Lambda and linq are quite separate. You can use one without using the other (there are parts of linq that depend on lambda expressions, but we want to keep it simple :-) )
A lambda expression is an anonymous
function that can contain expressions
and statements, and can be used to
create delegates or expression tree
types.
This was from MSDN. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397687.aspx )
To make it short (it's much more complex) you can use a lambda expression to make a local function. what you put before the => (in your example the c) will be the parameter of the function. The return type is "discovered" by the C# compiler.
c => c.City == "London" is nearly equivalent to:
delegate (TheObjectTypeOfC c) {
return c.City == London
};
(the difference is that some lambda expression are delegates and also expressions, but please ignore this, you won't need it for some time)
If/when the compiler isn't able to infer the types of the parameters, you can force them: (MyObject p) => p.SomeProperty != null. Here you are telling the compiler that p is a parameter.
While here I showed you what are called "expression lambdas", you can even do "statement lambdas":
p => {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if (p.SomeProperty == 0) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
(I won't tell you what are the "behind the scenes" differences between expression lambdas and statement lambdas. If you want to know them, read the msdn page I pointed before)
No it is not necessary at all.
We have two ways to write LINQ queries.
One is query method and other is builder method. You only need to put lambda expression in case of builder method.
For example, if we want to find all those students from some Students object that have more marks than 70.
but we can do this thing in LINQ with following syntax
var data = from p in stdList
where p.marks > 70
select p;
or
var data = stdList.Where(p=>p.marks > 70);
later approach is builder method, in Where function, we are passing lambda expressions.
Lambda expressions are just short cuts of doing things you can always use LINQ queries but if you want to avoid whole query syntax for just applying a simple condition you can just use LINQ builder methods (which asks for lambda expressions) in lambda expressions, you always define some alias and then perform your operation.
As far as => operator is concerned, It works just like assignment operator.
For example:
(p) => p.Gender == “F”
It means “All persons p, such that person’s Gender is F”
In some literature this is called “predicate”. Another literature terminology is “Projection”
(p) => p.Gender ? “F” : “Female”
“Each person p becomes string “Female” if Gender is “F””
This is projection, it uses ternary operator.
Although i explained with very basic examples but i hope this would help you . . . :)

Constructing an expression tree causes InvalidPathException

I'm constructing an expression tree (Expression<Func<PlainAddress, bool>> predicate) to pass it to the IQueryable.Where function for HNibernate to execute the query. When I pass:
predicate = y => y.Address.City == geoObject.Name;
everything works fine. When I pass:
var x = Expression.Parameter(typeof(PlainAddress));
Expression<Func<PlainAddress, string>> expression = y => y.Address.City;
predicate = Expression.Lambda<Func<PlainAddress, bool>>(
Expression.Equal(
Expression.Invoke(expression, x),
Expression.Constant(geoObject.Name)),
x);
I get the following exception
Invalid path: 'y.Address.City'
[.Where(NHibernate.Linq.NhQueryable`1[BPPDicsManager.Domain.Entities.PlainAddress],
Quote((60ee8287-3f42-426a-8c15-41f62f58623c, ) => (String.op_Equality((y, ) =>
(y.Address.City)60ee8287-3f42-426a-8c15-41f62f58623c, p1))), )]
What am I doing wrong? What are the difference between these 2 options?
I'm not familiar with NHibernate, but I can try to explain the differences between the two expressions.
1.The major difference is the use of Expression.Invoke in sample # 2, which creates an InvocatonExpression that "represents an expression that applies a delegate or lambda expression to a list of argument expressions". This introduces a kind of indirection - loosely speaking,
Sample # 1 is:
y => y.Address.City == geoObject.Name;
whereas Sample # 2 is something like:
x => new Func<PlainAddress, string>(y => y.Address.City).Invoke(x)
== geoObject.Name
You can get the second sample closer to the first by using Expression.Property to create the appropriate MemberExpressions :
var predicate = Expression.Lambda<Func<PlainAddress, bool>>(
Expression.Equal(
Expression.Property(Expression.Property(x, "Address"), "City"),
Expression.Constant(geoObject.Name)),
x);
This is now closer to:
x => x.Address.City == AsStringLiteral(geoObject.Name)
(I'm guessing this will be sufficient to get the predicate to work with NHibernate.)
2.The other difference of course, is the use of Expression.Constantin sample # 2, which will eagerly evaluate the value of geoObject.Name and turn that into a literal in the expression-tree. You're going to need a lot more work if you want to 'emulate' the hoisting of the geoObject variable (or perhaps this?) as in sample # 1.

Categories