We Keep Coding

Initialize nested Object from a list

I have a list of integers (Levels). I want to initialize a nested Object of Filter called myFilter as below(Filter is a class with two properties: Value and NextFilter):
var myFilter = new Fliter{
Value = Levels[0],
NextFilter = new Filter{
Value = Levels[1],
NextFilter = new Filter{
Value = Levels[2],
NextFilter = new Filter{
Value = Levels[n],
NextFilter = null
}
}
}
}
Level's count is not static and depends on the input list (I have a multi select list that generates Level)
How can I do that?

This is a classic event for using - the technique of a method that calls itself:
public static Filter CreateFilter(List<int> values) => values.Any() ? new Filter //If the list contains elements, create the filter
{
Value = values.First(), //assign the first item of the values to the value property
NextFilter = CreateFilter(values.Skip(1).ToList()) //Create the rest of the nested object with the rest of the values
} : null; //If there aren't any items left in the list, return null and stop the recursion
You could of course do it in the constructor as well:
public Filter(List<int> values)
{
if (!values.Any()) return;
Value = values.First();
NextFilter = values.Count > 1 ? new Filter(values.Skip(1).ToList()) : null;
}
For more information about recursion, take a look at this: https://www.dotnetperls.com/recursion, for more information on nested classes read through this: https://www.dotnetperls.com/nested-class.
A few more information on recursion:
You can actually achieve everything through recursion - you don't even need loops. That's the reason why in languages like Haskell loops don't exist.
The simplest recursive function is:
public static void EndlessLoop()
{
//Loop body
EndlessLoop();
}
However, even Resharper suggests to convert it to a loop:
Another example, if you want to get the sum of a list you could do:
public static int Sum(List<int> summands) => summands.Count > 0
? summands.First() + Sum(summands.Skip(1).ToList())
: 0;
But those examples aren't useful in C#, as C# isn't a functional programming language, which causes recursion to be slower than loops. Furthermore recursion often causes a StackOverflowException (fitting to this site). If you run the endless loop recursion, it doesn't even take a second till your stack is full.
The reason for this is, that C# adds the address, from which a method got called, to the stack. If a method is called very often (and in 1 second a lot of recursive calls are made) a lot of addresses are added to the stack, so that it overflows.
However I still think, even though those examples aren't useful in c#, that it's quite useful to be able to handle recursion. Recursion is for example the only way to explore a directory structure, for getting for example all files:
public static List<FileInfo> GetAllFiles(DirectoryInfo directory) => directory.GetFiles()
.Concat(directory.GetDirectories().SelectMany(GetAllFiles))
.ToList();
And, as you experienced, it's the only way to fill a nested class from a list properly.

Just make a constructor of Filter, that will get Levels array as a parameter, that will set it's Value as level[0], and init NextFilter = new Filter(level.Skip(1)). Something like that. And it will recursively initialize your object.

Sorting a list with two parameters using CompareTo

I am presently sorting a C# list using the 'CompareTo' method in the object type contained in the list. I want to sort ascendingly all items by their WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) and I can manage this very well using the following code:
public int CompareTo(DisplayItemsEntity other)
{
string[] instanceWbsArray = this.WBS.Split('.');
string[] otherWbsArray = other.WBS.Split('.');
int result = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < maxLenght; i++)
{
if (instanceWbsArray[i].Equals(otherWbsArray[i]))
{
continue;
}
else
{
result = Int32.Parse(instanceWbsArray[i]).CompareTo(Int32.Parse(otherWbsArray[i]));
break;
}
}
return result;
}
Now, I would like to be able to sort considering more than one parameter, as in the project name alphabetically, before considering the second which would be the WBS. How can I do this?

I don't know the details of your class, so I'll provide an example using a list of strings and LINQ. OrderBy will order the strings alphabetically, ThenBy will order them by their lengths afterwards. You can adapt this sample to your needs easily enough.
var list = new List<string>
{
"Foo",
"Bar",
"Foobar"
};
var sortedList = list.OrderBy(i => i).
ThenBy(i => i.Length).
ToList();

What we generally do in cases like yours is this:
public int CompareTo( SomeClass other )
{
int result = this.SomeProperty.CompareTo( other.SomeProperty );
if( result != 0 )
return result;
result = this.AnotherProperty.CompareTo( other.AnotherProperty );
if( result != 0 )
return result;
[...]
return result;
}
P.S.
When posting code, please try to include only the code which is pertinent to your question. There is a load of stuff in the code that you posted that I did not need to read, and that in fact made my eyes hurt.

I like Eve's answer because of it's flexibility but I'm kinda surprised that no-one has mentioned creating a custom IComparer<T> instance
IComparer<T> is a generic interface that defines a method for comparing two instances of the type T. The advantage of using IComparer<T> is that you can create implementations for each sort order you commonly use and then use these as and when necessary. This allows you to create a default sort order in the types CompareTo() method and define alternative orders separately.
E.g.
public class MyComparer
: IComparer<YourType>
{
public int Compare(YourType x, YourType y)
{
//Add your comparison logic here
}
}
IComparer<T> is particularly useful for composition where you can do things like have a comparer which compares some properties of a given type using another comparer that operates on the type of the property.
It's also very useful if you ever need to define a sorting on a type you don't control. Another advantage it has is it doesn't require LINQ so can be used in older code (.Net 2.0 onwards)

First compare the project name alphabetically and if they are not equal return value, if not perform comparison based on second value
public int CompareTo(DisplayItemsEntity other)
{
if(other.ProjectName.CompareTo(this.ProjectName) != 0)
{
return other.ProjectName.CompareTo(this.ProjectName)
}
//else do the second comparison and return
return result;
}

Dictionary ContainsKey does not seem to work with string[] key

I am trying to have a data structure with multiple string keys. To do this, I tried to create a Dictionary with string[] element. But the ContainsKey do no seem to work as I expect:
Dictionary<string[], int> aaa = new Dictionary<string[], int>();
int aaaCount = 0;
aaa.Add(new string[] { string1, string2 }, aaaCount++);
if (!aaa.ContainsKey(new string[] { string1, string2 }))
{
aaa.Add(new string[] { string1, string2 }, aaaCount++);
}
I see that there are two entries in aaa after the execution of the code above while I was expecting only one. Is this the expected behaviour? How can I ensure that there are no duplicate entries in the Dictionary?
Note: I tried the same with a list as well (List and the result is the same - the Contains method does not really work with string[])

If you want to use string[] as TKey, you should pass IEqualityComparer<string[]> to the constructor of Dictionary. Because Otherwise Dictionary uses standard comparison for TKey and in case of string[] it just compares references hence string[] is reference type. You have to implement IEqualityComparer yourself. It can be done in the following way:
(The implementation is quite naive, I provide it just as the starting point)
public class StringArrayComparer : IEqualityComparer<string[]>
{
public bool Equals(string[] left, string[] right)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(left, right))
{
return true;
}
if ((left == null) || (right == null))
{
return false;
}
return left.SequenceEqual(right);
}
public int GetHashCode(string[] obj)
{
return obj.Aggregate(17, (res, item) => unchecked(res * 23 + item.GetHashCode()));
}
}

You need to create an IEqualityComparer<string[]> and pass it to the dictionary's constructor.
This tells the dictionary how to compare keys.
By default, it compares them by reference.

Because an array is a reference type, i.e., you are checking reference (identity) equality, not equality based on the values within the array. When you create a new array with the same values the arrays themselves are still two distinct objects, so ContainsKey returns false.
Using an array as a Dictionary key is a bit... odd. What are you trying to map here? There is probably a better way to do it.

You may be better off, if your application supports it, to combine the string array into a single string.
We have numerous cases where two pieces of information uniquely identifies a record in a collection and in these cases, we join the two strings using a value that should never be in either string (i.e. Char(1)).
Since it is usually a class instance that is being added, we let the class specify the generation of the key so that the code adding to the collection only has to worry about checking a single property (i.e. CollectionKey).

Create an enumeration of one

If I want an empty enumeration, I can call Enumerable.Empty<T>(). But what if I want to convert a scalar type to an enumeration?
Normally I'd write new List<string> {myString} to pass myString to a function that accepts IEnumerable<string>. Is there a more LINQ-y way?

You can use Repeat:
var justOne = Enumerable.Repeat(value, 1);
Or just an array of course:
var singleElementArray = new[] { value };
The array version is mutable of course, whereas Enumerable.Repeat isn't.

Perhaps the shortest form is
var sequence = new[] { value };

There is, but it's less efficient than using a List or Array:
// an enumeration containing only the number 13.
var oneIntEnumeration = Enumerable.Repeat(13, 1);

You can also write your own extension method:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> AsEnumerable<T>(this T item)
{
yield return item;
}
}
Now I haven't done that, and now that I know about Enumerable.Repeat, I probably never will (learn something new every day). But I have done this:
public static IEnumerable<T> MakeEnumerable<T>(params T[] items)
{
return items;
}
And this, of course, works if you call it with a single argument. But maybe there's something like this in the framework already, that I haven't discovered yet.

Generic method to recive any type of object and convert the object to a List<string>

EDIT AGAIN: the solution was probably different from my original question. Thanks everyone very much your great ideas. I wish I could vote for more than one answer.
EDIT: I am populating a Jquery table plugin from datatables/.net and it requires the data (Json) to be in a certain format like this;
"sEcho": 1,
"iTotalRecords": 57,
"iTotalDisplayRecords": 57,
"aaData": [
[
"Gecko",
"Firefox 1.0",
"Win 98+ / OSX.2+",
"1.7",
"A"
],
[
"Gecko",
"Firefox 1.5",
"Win 98+ / OSX.2+",
"1.8",
"A"
],
...
]
}
I am recieving data from a service that is returning a collection of object. I would like one method which I can pass these collections into and it will return the appropriate string
thanks
END EDIT
I would like to build a method that can receive and object that we build and will return an array List each containing the value of each object passed in. For example;
I have a collection of 'Car' objects
What I would like to do is
public object[] Something<T>(_cars)
{
object[] objArray = new object[_cars.Count];
foreach(Car _car in _cars ){
IList objList = new List<string>;
objList.Add(_car.Color);
objList.Add(_car.EngineSize);
//etc etc
objArray[i] = objList;//i'll have to use a for loop to get the i counter but you get my idea
}
return objArray
}
my problem is how can I access the properties of the object without knowing what type of object it is?
thanks for any help

Update: To answer your revised question - produce a JSON result of a data structure - use the built-in JavaScriptSerializer class:
JavaScriptSerializer serializer = new JavaScriptSerializer();
string json = seriaizer.Serialize(myObjectOrArray);
Below is the previous answer.
how can I access the properties of the object without knowing what type of object it is
Using Reflection, and grabbing the properties which are strings. Note this is not necessarily a good idea. The fact that you have to use reflection to get what you want is usually a HUGE WARNING FLAG that your design is wrong.
However, in the hopes of learning something useful, here's how it could be done:
public object[] Something<T>(T[] items)
{
IList objList = new List<object>();
//get the properties on which are strings
PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T).GetProperties().Where(p => p.PropertyType == typeof(string));
foreach(T item in items)
{
IList stringList = new List<string>;
foreach(PropertyInfo property in properties)
{
objList.Add(property.GetValue(item, null) as string);
}
objList.Add(stringList);
}
}
return objList.ToArray();
}
A far, far better solution would be to require all the objects coming into this method to conform to some interface that requires them to provide their own string-formatted data. Or maybe take two steps back and ask for help on the underlying problem. This approach is fraught with problems. It's a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.

Use the System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer class. It was specifically provided for JSON serialization.
using System.Web.Script.Serialization;
public string ToJson(object o)
{
JavaScriptSerializer serializer = new JavaScriptSerializer();
return serializer.Serialize(o);
}
EDIT: Oops, I missed that your plugin doesn't want a true JSON representation of the objects; it just wants arrays of values. You could use reflection to iterate over the properties of the objects as others have suggested, but then you have no control over which properties end up in which columns. It is not clear from your question whether that is a problem for you.
If you need a strict mapping between properties and columns, then you will have to define that somehow in C#. To do this you could implement IEnumerable as Ed demonstrates or create a custom interface:
public interface ITableDataSource
{
IList<string> GetTableData();
}
Then implement this on any objects that might need to be data sources for the jQuery table plugin:
public class Car : ITableDataSource
{
//...class implementation details...
public IList<string> GetTableData()
{
return new List<string>()
{
this.Color,
this.EngineSize,
this.NumberOfSeats.ToString()
};
}
}
Finally, in your method that is returning the data to the jQuery plugin, use the interface to construct your response object, then pass it to my ToJson() method to serialize it:
public string DoSomething(IList<ITableDataSource> objects)
{
var result = new
{
sEcho = 1,
iTotalRecords = 1,
iTotalDisplayRecords = 1,
aaData = new List<IList<string>>()
};
foreach (ITableDataSource ds in objects)
result.aaData.Add(ds.GetTableData());
return ToJson(result);
}

While it would be relatively straightforward to use reflection to loop through all of your objects and all the properties on those objects to build that string, it's already been written.
I would highly recommend looking at the Json.NET project found here. Add this DLL to your project and converting a list of objects into a Json formatted string is as easy as:
string json = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.SerializeObject( listOfCars );

IList objList = new List<string>();
foreach ( PropertyInfo prop in _car.GetType().GetProperties() )
{
var value = prop.GetValue( _car, null );
objList.Add( value != null ? value.ToString() : null );
}
objArray[i] = objList;

The code to get the Property values of an object is
foreach (PropertyInfo info in myObject.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (info.CanRead)
{
object o = propertyInfo.GetValue(myObject, null);
}
}

my problem is how can I access the properties of the object without knowing what type of object it is?
Well, in the general sense you can't. Generics is all about treating objects generically. However, you can impose type constraints by using a where clause. Based on the foreach loop I would say constrain your types to types that implement IEnumerable, but then you go on to use properties like "Color" and "EngineSize", which are very specific. I don't even know why you would have properties named "Color" and "EngineSize" that are strings, but that is another problem altogether...
It seems like the best approach for you would be to define an interface or an abstract base class that each of these objects inherits from. Then you can use the 'where' clause to constrain to objects of that interface/base class only So...
public object[] Something<T>( T _cars) where T : IEnumerable<MyInterface>
However, if we are going to go down this road I don't see why the method should be generic at all. It could simply take an IEnumerable<T> as an input. When we only want to use one type in a method generics is not needed.