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;
}

verify cummulative sum verify property efficiently with LINQ

I would like to verify if the sum of the elements (which are non-negativ) of my list isinferior to some values. And I don't want to calculate the the whole sum it is not necessary.(if we prove that the sum of the first element don't respect the property, we stop the computation)
So I would like a LINQ command that verify each element of the cummulative sum is inferior to some value as long as it see that the ineqality hold.
var b = a.Aggregate(new List<int> { 0 }, (ls, x) => { ls.Add(x + ls.Last()); return ls; }).All(x => x < 4);
This method doesn't work. All stop when it see that the ith element of the cummulative sum doesn't safisty the property but the whole cummulative sum is compute.
Have you a better way to do that? (I know we can do that efficiently with loop but I want to do that with LINQ)
if I use a loop:
var s = 0;
var b = true;
foreach(var x in list)
{
s=s+x;
if(s>4){ b= false; break;}
}
Thank you

You don't need to use a LINQ method to do what you want. You can write your own using enumerators and loops. After all, LINQ-to-Objects operations themselves are implemented using loops. For example TakeWhile is implemented as an iterator that loops over the source and yields matching elements :
static IEnumerable<TSource> TakeWhileIterator<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, int, bool> predicate) {
int index = -1;
foreach (TSource element in source) {
checked { index++; }
if (!predicate(element, index)) break;
yield return element;
}
}
The downside is that this generates a state machine for the iterator and returns all matching elements, whether they are used or not.
You can write your own extension method that calculates the sum in a loop and returns true if the loop completes without reaching the limit :
public static bool SumBelow(this IEnumerable<int> source, int limit)
{
int sum=0;
foreach (var element in source)
{
sum+=element;
if (sum>limit)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
And use it as an extension method :
var isSumBelow = someEnumerable.SumBelow(5);
Why not a generic method ?
There's no way to specify an operator constraint or an IAddable interface, which is why Sum() itself is implemented for each type separately, eg :
public static int Sum(this IEnumerable<int> source) {
if (source == null) throw Error.ArgumentNull("source");
int sum = 0;
checked {
foreach (int v in source) sum += v;
}
return sum;
}
The functional way
Passing the accumulator and condition checker as functions can be used to create one generic, reusable method that can work with any transormation and condition :
public static bool AccWithinLimit<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source,
Func<T,T,T> accumulator,
Func<T,bool> terminator,
T seed=default)
{
T total=seed;
foreach (var element in source)
{
total = accumulator(element,total);
if (terminator(total))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
This can be used to check for partial sums with integer arrays :
var myArray=new []{1,2,3};
var limit = 5;
var totalBelowLimit = myArray.AccWithinLimit(myArray,
(sum,elm)=>sum+elm,
sum=>sum>limit);
Or partial products with a list of doubles:
var myList = new List<double>{1.0, 2.0, 3.0};
var limit = 10;
var totalBelowLimit = myList.AccWithinLimit(myArray,
(sum,elm)=>sum*elm,
sum=>sum>limit,
1);

You can use TakeWhile to take items from the list until the sum exeeds some value
public void TestTakeWhileCumulativeSum()
{
int[] numbers = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 };
int maxCumulativeSum = 5;
int previous = 0;
var result = numbers.TakeWhile(n => (previous = n + previous) <= maxCumulativeSum);
Assert.AreEqual(result.Count(), 5);
}

Cache LINQ query - IEnumerable.Skip()

Consider the following code
IEnumerable<Items> remainingItems = Items
var results = new List<List<Items>>();
var counter = 0;
while (remainingItems.Any())
{
var result = new List<Item>();
result.AddRange(remainingItems.TakeWhile(x => somePredicate(x, counter));
results.Add(result);
remainingItems = remainingItems.Skip(result.Count);
counter++;
}
If it's not clear whats happening, I'm taking an Ienumerable, and iterating through it till a predicate fails, putting all those items into one pile, and then continue iterating through the remaining items till the next predicate fails, and put all of those in a pile. Rinse, Wash, Repeat.
Now the bit I want to focus on here is the Ienumerable.Skip()
Since it uses delayed execution, it means I have to go through all the elements I've already skipped on each loop.
I could use ToList() to force it to evaluate, but then it needs to iterate through all the remaining items to do so, which is just as bad.
So what I really need is an IEnumerable, which does the skipping eagerly, and stores the first last point we were up to, to continue from there. So I need some function like:
IEnumerable.SkipAndCache(n) which allows me to access an IEnumerator starting at the nth item.
Any ideas?

You can use MoreLinq for that. There is an experimental function called Memoize which lazily caches the sequence. So the code will look like this:
while (remainingItems.Any())
{
var result = new List<Item>();
result.AddRange(remainingItems.TakeWhile(x => somePredicate(x, counter));
results.Add(result);
remainingItems = remainingItems.Skip(result.Count).Memoize();
counter++;
}
Here the result will not be materialized because it is still lazy evaluation:
remainingItems = remainingItems.Skip(result.Count).Memoize();
Here the remainingItems sequence will be evaluated and cached (the iterator will not go through all the elements like in ToList):
remainingItems.Any()
And here the cache will be used:
result.AddRange(remainingItems.TakeWhile(x => somePredicate(x, counter));
To use this method you need to add:
using MoreLinq.Experimental;

As we are skipping the result set in series why not use the for loop for the same like
for(int i = 0 ; i < result.Count ; i++){
//do some business logic and now i got X result
i = i + X
}

Yield might be useful, if I'm understanding your question correctly
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Test<T>(IEnumerable<T> source)
{
var items = new List<T>();
foreach (T item in source)
{
items.Add(item);
if (!SomePredicate(item))
{
yield return items;
items = new List<T>();
}
}
// if you want any remaining items to go into their own IEnumerable, even if there's no more fails
if (items.Count > 0)
{
yield return items;
}
}
Just as en example I made my fail condition to be !item % 10 == 0 and passed in values 0 to 1000 to the above method. I get 101 IEnumerables containing 0 in the first, and the rest containing 1 to 10, 11 to 20, etc. etc.

You could write a simple extension method to help with this:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> PartitionBy<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, Func<T, int, bool> predicate)
{
var block = new List<T>();
int index = 0;
foreach (var item in sequence)
{
if (predicate(item, index++))
{
block.Add(item);
}
else if (block.Count > 0)
{
yield return block.ToList(); // Return a copy so the caller can't change our local list.
block.Clear();
}
}
if (block.Count > 0)
yield return block; // No need for a copy since we've finished using our local list.
}
(As an extension method, you need to put that in a static class.)
Then you can use it to partition data like so. For this example, we will partition a list of ints into partitions where the list element's value is equal to its index:
static void Main()
{ // 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
var ints = new List<int> {0, 1, 0, 3, 4, 5, 0, 0, 8, 9};
var result = ints.PartitionBy(((item, index) => item == index)); // Items where value == index.
foreach (var seq in result)
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", seq));
// Output is:
// 0, 1
// 3, 4, 5
// 8, 9
}
Note that this implementation skips over elements that do not match the predicate.
Here's an alternative, more complicated implementation that doesn't make a copy of the data:
class Indexer
{
public int Index;
public bool Finished;
}
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> PartitionBy<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, Func<T, int, bool> predicate)
{
var iter = sequence.GetEnumerator();
var indexer = new Indexer();
while (!indexer.Finished)
{
yield return nextBlock(iter, predicate, indexer);
}
}
static IEnumerable<T> nextBlock<T>(IEnumerator<T> iter, Func<T, int, bool> predicate, Indexer indexer)
{
int index = indexer.Index;
bool any = false;
while (true)
{
if (!iter.MoveNext())
{
indexer.Finished = true;
yield break;
}
if (predicate(iter.Current, index++))
{
any = true;
yield return iter.Current;
}
else
{
indexer.Index = index;
if (any)
yield break;
}
}
}

How to compare sequential elements in a foreach loop in C#

In a foreach loop I want to compare an element with the previous element that was read. How can I do that? What is the syntax for addressing a previous element in a foreach loop?

You don't have that option built in with a foreach loop.
You can either switch to a for loop or use a variable.
Suppose you iterate through a list of objects, these are your options:
object prev = null;
foreach(var current in myListOfObjects)
{
if(current == prev)
{
// do stuff
}
// don't forget the next row!
prev = current;
}
or
for(var i = 1; i < myListOfObjects.count, i++) // Note: starting from 1 to avoid another condition inside the loop.
{
if(myListOfObjects[i] == myListOfObjects[i-1])
{
// do stuff
}
}

Everything is better with Bluetooth extension methods:
public static class EnumerableExtensions
{
public struct CurrentAndPrevious<T>
{
public T Current { get; private set; }
public T Previous { get; private set; }
public CurrentAndPrevious(T current, T previous) : this()
{
Previous = previous;
Current = current;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<CurrentAndPrevious<T>> WithPrevious<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
var previous = default(T);
using(var enumerator = enumerable.GetEnumerator())
{
while(enumerator.MoveNext())
{
yield return new CurrentAndPrevious<T>(enumerator.Current, previous);
previous = enumerator.Current;
}
}
}
}
var items = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
foreach(var item in items.WithPrevious())
{
Console.WriteLine(item.Previous + " " + item.Current);
}
You might need to tweak this depending on how you want first and last elements handled.

You can loop over a bit modified source instead of initial, say ListOfMyObjects:
MyObject prior = default(MyObject);
var source = ListOfMyObjects
.Select(item => {
var result = new {
Current = item,
Prior = prior,
};
prior = item; // side effect, not a good practice
return result;
});
So you can loop
foreach(var item in source) {
if (item.Prior == item.Current) {
...
}
}

A foreach itself has no syntax 'for addressing a previous element'. There are two options, depending on the characteristics of the collection and also the notion of a 'previous' element in respect of the first one. The following the examples are a little bit simplistic, but you should be able to choose the right path and fine-tune the details.
Option 1: Use a temporary variable
Works well if there's no cheap (performance-wise) way to index elements in the sequence, and you are OK with 'pretending' there's an empty (null, or default(T)) item before the very first item.
T previous = default(T); // corresponds to null for reference types
foreach (T item in sequence)
{
… work with previous and item here…
// the current 'item' is the new 'previous' for the next iteration
previous = item;
}
Note that if T is a value type, your would be actually copying the values themselves.
Option 2: Use a for loop and indexing
Works well if there is a cheap (performance-wise) way to index individual elements directly. List<T> and arrays are good examples here.
// indexing from 1, i.e. from the second item in the sequence
for (int i = 1; i < sequence.Count; i++)
{
var previous = sequence[i-1]; // this is obviously the previous item
var current = sequence[i]; // this is obviously the current item
}

Similar to using a temp variable, however this solution moves the scope of the temp variable inside the loop
var collection = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
foreach (var item in collection)
{
var currentIndex = collection.IndexOf(item);
if (currentIndex > 0 && currentIndex < collection.Count)
{
var previousItem = collection[currentIndex - 1];
}
}

As mentioned by Pham X, one easy way to do this would be a temp variable.
ObjectType temp_object = null;
foreach(var entry in ListOfObjects)
{
if(temp_object==null)
{
//this is the first time through...
temp_object=entry;
}
else
{
//it's anything after the first loop
if(entry==temp_object) Console.WriteLine("There is a match between two entries.");
else temp_object=entry;
}
}

How to check if contents of a List<String> is alphabetical [duplicate]

I am doing some unit tests and I want to know if there's any way to test if a list is ordered by a property of the objects it contains.
Right now I am doing it this way but I don't like it, I want a better way. Can somebody help me please?
// (fill the list)
List<StudyFeedItem> studyFeeds =
Feeds.GetStudyFeeds(2120, DateTime.Today.AddDays(-200), 20);
StudyFeedItem previous = studyFeeds.First();
foreach (StudyFeedItem item in studyFeeds)
{
if (item != previous)
{
Assert.IsTrue(previous.Date > item.Date);
}
previous = item;
}

If you are using MSTest, you may want to take a look at CollectionAssert.AreEqual.
Enumerable.SequenceEqual may be another useful API to use in an assertion.
In both cases you should prepare a list that holds the expected list in the expected order, and then compare that list to the result.
Here's an example:
var studyFeeds = Feeds.GetStudyFeeds(2120, DateTime.Today.AddDays(-200), 20);
var expectedList = studyFeeds.OrderByDescending(x => x.Date);
Assert.IsTrue(expectedList.SequenceEqual(studyFeeds));

A .NET 4.0 way would be to use the Enumerable.Zip method to zip the list with itself offset by one, which pairs each item with the subsequent item in the list. You can then check that the condition holds true for each pair, e.g.
var ordered = studyFeeds.Zip(studyFeeds.Skip(1), (a, b) => new { a, b })
.All(p => p.a.Date < p.b.Date);
If you're on an earlier version of the framework you can write your own Zip method without too much trouble, something like the following (argument validation and disposal of the enumerators if applicable is left to the reader):
public static IEnumerable<TResult> Zip<TFirst, TSecond, TResult>(
this IEnumerable<TFirst> first,
IEnumerable<TSecond> second,
Func<TFirst, TSecond, TResult> selector)
{
var e1 = first.GetEnumerator();
var e2 = second.GetEnumerator();
while (e1.MoveNext() & e2.MoveNext()) // one & is important
yield return selector(e1.Current, e2.Current);
}

Nunit 2.5 introduced CollectionOrderedContraint and a nice syntax for verifying the order of a collection:
Assert.That(collection, Is.Ordered.By("PropertyName"));
No need to manually order and compare.

If your unit testing framework has helper methods to assert equality of collections, you should be able do something like this (NUnit flavored):
var sorted = studyFeeds.OrderBy(s => s.Date);
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(sorted.ToList(), studyFeeds.ToList());
The assert method works with any IEnumerable, but when both collections are of type IList or "array of something", the error message thrown when the assert fails will contain the index of the first out-of-place element.

The solutions posted involving sorting the list are expensive - determining if a list IS sorted can be done in O(N). Here's an extension method which will check:
public static bool IsOrdered<T>(this IList<T> list, IComparer<T> comparer = null)
{
if (comparer == null)
{
comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
}
if (list.Count > 1)
{
for (int i = 1; i < list.Count; i++)
{
if (comparer.Compare(list[i - 1], list[i]) > 0)
{
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
A corresponding IsOrderedDescending could be implemented easily by changing > 0 to < 0.

Greg Beech answer, although excellent, can be simplified further by performing the test in the Zip itself. So instead of:
var ordered = studyFeeds.Zip(studyFeeds.Skip(1), (a, b) => new { a, b })
.All(p => p.a.Date <= p.b.Date);
You can simply do:
var ordered = !studyFeeds.Zip(studyFeeds.Skip(1), (a, b) => a.Date <= b.Date)
.Contains(false);
Which saves you one lambda expression and one anonymous type.
(In my opinion removing the anonymous type also makes it easier to read.)

if(studyFeeds.Length < 2)
return;
for(int i = 1; i < studyFeeds.Length;i++)
Assert.IsTrue(studyFeeds[i-1].Date > studyFeeds[i].Date);
for isn't dead just quite yet!

How about:
var list = items.ToList();
for(int i = 1; i < list.Count; i++) {
Assert.IsTrue(yourComparer.Compare(list[i - 1], list[i]) <= 0);
}
where yourComparer is an instance of YourComparer which implements IComparer<YourBusinessObject>. This ensures that every element is less than the next element in the enumeration.

Linq based answer is:
You can use SequenceEqual method to check if the original and ordered one is same or not.
var isOrderedAscending = lJobsList.SequenceEqual(lJobsList.OrderBy(x => x));
var isOrderedDescending = lJobsList.SequenceEqual(lJobsList.OrderByDescending(x => x));
Don't forget to import System.Linq namespace.
Additionally:
I am repeating that this answer is Linq based, you can achieve more efficiency by creating your custom extension method.
Also, if somebody still wants to use Linq and check if the sequence both is ordered in ascending or descending order, then you can achieve a little bit more efficiency like that:
var orderedSequence = lJobsList.OrderBy(x => x)
.ToList();
var reversedOrderSequence = orderedSequence.AsEnumerable()
.Reverse();
if (lJobsList.SequenceEqual(orderedSequence))
{
// Ordered in ascending
}
else (lJobsList.SequenceEqual(reversedOrderSequence))
{
// Ordered in descending
}

You could use an extension method like this:
public static System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection? SortDirection<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, Comparer<T> comparer = null)
{
if (items == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("items");
if (comparer == null) comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
bool ascendingOrder = true; bool descendingOrder = true;
using (var e = items.GetEnumerator())
{
if (e.MoveNext())
{
T last = e.Current; // first item
while (e.MoveNext())
{
int diff = comparer.Compare(last, e.Current);
if (diff > 0)
ascendingOrder = false;
else if (diff < 0)
descendingOrder = false;
if (!ascendingOrder && !descendingOrder)
break;
last = e.Current;
}
}
}
if (ascendingOrder)
return System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection.Ascending;
else if (descendingOrder)
return System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection.Descending;
else
return null;
}
It enables to check if the sequence is sorted and also determines the direction:
var items = new[] { 3, 2, 1, 1, 0 };
var sort = items.SortDirection();
Console.WriteLine("Is sorted? {0}, Direction: {1}", sort.HasValue, sort);
//Is sorted? True, Direction: Descending

Here's how I do it with Linq and I comparable, might not be the best but works for me and it's test framework independent.
So the call looks like this:
myList.IsOrderedBy(a => a.StartDate)
This works for anything that implements IComparable, so numbers strings and anything that inherit from IComparable:
public static bool IsOrderedBy<T, TProperty>(this List<T> list, Expression<Func<T, TProperty>> propertyExpression) where TProperty : IComparable<TProperty>
{
var member = (MemberExpression) propertyExpression.Body;
var propertyInfo = (PropertyInfo) member.Member;
IComparable<TProperty> previousValue = null;
for (int i = 0; i < list.Count(); i++)
{
var currentValue = (TProperty)propertyInfo.GetValue(list[i], null);
if (previousValue == null)
{
previousValue = currentValue;
continue;
}
if(previousValue.CompareTo(currentValue) > 0) return false;
previousValue = currentValue;
}
return true;
}
Hope this helps, took me ages to work this one out.

Checking a sequence can have four different outcomes. Same means that all elements in the sequence are the same (or the sequence is empty):
enum Sort {
Unsorted,
Same,
SortedAscending,
SortedDescending
}
Here is a way to check the sorting of a sequence:
Sort GetSort<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, IComparer<T> comparer = null) {
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
if (comparer == null)
comparer = Comparer<T>.Default;
using (var enumerator = source.GetEnumerator()) {
if (!enumerator.MoveNext())
return Sort.Same;
Sort? result = null;
var previousItem = enumerator.Current;
while (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
var nextItem = enumerator.Current;
var comparison = comparer.Compare(previousItem, nextItem);
if (comparison < 0) {
if (result == Sort.SortedDescending)
return Sort.Unsorted;
result = Sort.SortedAscending;
}
else if (comparison > 0) {
if (result == Sort.SortedAscending)
return Sort.Unsorted;
result = Sort.SortedDescending;
}
}
return result ?? Sort.Same;
}
}
I'm using the enumerator directly instead of a foreach loop because I need to examine the elements of the sequence as pairs. It makes the code more complex but is also more efficient.

Something LINQ-y would be to use a separate sorted query...
var sorted = from item in items
orderby item.Priority
select item;
Assert.IsTrue(items.SequenceEquals(sorted));
Type inference means you'd need a
where T : IHasPriority
However, if you have multiple items of the same priority, then for a unit test assertion you're probably best off just looping with the list index as Jason suggested.

One way or another you're going to have to walk the list and ensure that the items are in the order you want. Since the item comparison is custom, you could look into creating a generic method for this and passing in a comparison function - the same way that sorting the list uses comparison functions.

You can create an ordered and an unordered version of the list first:
var asc = jobs.OrderBy(x => x);
var desc = jobs.OrderByDescending(x => x);
Now compare the original list with both:
if (jobs.SequenceEqual(asc) || jobs.SequenceEquals(desc)) // ...

var studyFeeds = Feeds.GetStudyFeeds(2120, DateTime.Today.AddDays(-200), 20);
var orderedFeeds = studyFeeds.OrderBy(f => f.Date);
for (int i = 0; i < studyFeeds.Count; i++)
{
Assert.AreEqual(orderedFeeds[i].Date, studyFeeds[i].Date);
}

What about something like this, without sorting the list
public static bool IsAscendingOrder<T>(this IEnumerable<T> seq) where T : IComparable
{
var seqArray = seq as T[] ?? seq.ToArray();
return !seqArray.Where((e, i) =>
i < seqArray.Count() - 1 &&
e.CompareTo(seqArray.ElementAt(i + 1)) >= 0).Any();
}

Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.CollectionAssert.AreEqual(
mylist.OrderBy((a) => a.SomeProperty).ToList(),
mylist,
"Not sorted.");

Here's a more lightweight generic version. To test for descending order, change the >= 0 comparison to <= 0.
public static bool IsAscendingOrder<T>(this IEnumerable<T> seq) where T : IComparable<T>
{
var predecessor = default(T);
var hasPredecessor = false;
foreach(var x in seq)
{
if (hasPredecessor && predecessor.CompareTo(x) >= 0) return false;
predecessor = x;
hasPredecessor = true;
}
return true;
}
Tests:
new int[] { }.IsAscendingOrder() returns true
new int[] { 1 }.IsAscendingOrder() returns true
new int[] { 1,2 }.IsAscendingOrder() returns true
new int[] { 1,2,0 }.IsAscendingOrder() returns false

While AnorZaken's and Greg Beech's answers are very nice, as they don't require using an extension method, it can be good to avoid Zip() sometimes, as some enumerables can be expensive to enumerate in this way.
A solution can be found in Aggregate()
double[] score1 = new double[] { 12.2, 13.3, 5, 17.2, 2.2, 4.5 };
double[] score2 = new double[] { 2.2, 4.5, 5, 12.2, 13.3, 17.2 };
bool isordered1 = score1.Aggregate(double.MinValue,(accum,elem)=>elem>=accum?elem:double.MaxValue) < double.MaxValue;
bool isordered2 = score2.Aggregate(double.MinValue,(accum,elem)=>elem>=accum?elem:double.MaxValue) < double.MaxValue;
Console.WriteLine ("isordered1 {0}",isordered1);
Console.WriteLine ("isordered2 {0}",isordered2);
One thing a little ugly about the above solution, is the double less-than comparisons. Floating comparisons like this make me queasy as it is almost like a floating point equality comparison. But it seems to work for double here. Integer values would be fine, also.
The floating point comparison can be avoided by using nullable types, but then the code becomes a bit harder to read.
double[] score3 = new double[] { 12.2, 13.3, 5, 17.2, 2.2, 4.5 };
double[] score4 = new double[] { 2.2, 4.5, 5, 12.2, 13.3, 17.2 };
bool isordered3 = score3.Aggregate((double?)double.MinValue,(accum,elem)=>(elem>(accum??(double?)double.MaxValue).Value)?(double?)elem:(double?)null) !=null;
bool isordered4 = score4.Aggregate((double?)double.MinValue,(accum,elem)=>(elem>(accum??(double?)double.MaxValue).Value)?(double?)elem:(double?)null) !=null;
Console.WriteLine ("isordered3 {0}",isordered3);
Console.WriteLine ("isordered4 {0}",isordered4);

You can use lambda in extension:
public static bool IsAscending<T>(this IEnumerable<T> self, Func<T, T, int> compareTo) {
var list = self as IList<T> ?? self.ToList();
if (list.Count < 2) {
return true;
}
T a = list[0];
for (int i = 1; i < list.Count; i++) {
T b = list[i];
if (compareTo(a, b) > 0) {
return false;
}
a = b;
}
return true;
}
Using:
bool result1 = Enumerable.Range(2, 10).IsAscending((a, b) => a.CompareTo(b));
more:
var lst = new List<(int, string)> { (1, "b"), (2, "a"), (3, "s1"), (3, "s") };
bool result2 = lst.IsAscending((a, b) => {
var cmp = a.Item1.CompareTo(b.Item1);
if (cmp != 0) {
return cmp;
} else {
return a.Item2.CompareTo(b.Item2);
}
});

var expectedList = resultA.ToArray();
var actualList = resultB.ToArray();
var i = 0;
foreach (var item in expectedList)
{
Assert.True(expectedList[i].id == actualList[i].id);
i++;
}