Develop Reference

Intelligent way of removing items from a List<T> while enumerating in C#

I have the classic case of trying to remove an item from a collection while enumerating it in a loop:
List<int> myIntCollection = new List<int>();
myIntCollection.Add(42);
myIntCollection.Add(12);
myIntCollection.Add(96);
myIntCollection.Add(25);
foreach (int i in myIntCollection)
{
if (i == 42)
myIntCollection.Remove(96); // The error is here.
if (i == 25)
myIntCollection.Remove(42); // The error is here.
}
At the beginning of the iteration after a change takes place, an InvalidOperationException is thrown, because enumerators don’t like when the underlying collection changes.
I need to make changes to the collection while iterating. There are many patterns that can be used to avoid this, but none of them seems to have a good solution:
Do not delete inside this loop, instead keep a separate “Delete List”, that you process after the main loop.
This is normally a good solution, but in my case, I need the item to be gone instantly as “waiting” till after
the main loop to really delete the item changes the logic flow of my code.
Instead of deleting the item, simply set a flag on the item and mark it as inactive. Then add the functionality of pattern 1 to clean up the list.
This would work for all of my needs, but it means that a lot of code will have to change in order to check the inactive flag every time an item is accessed. This is far too much administration for my liking.
Somehow incorporate the ideas of pattern 2 in a class that derives from List<T>. This Superlist will handle the inactive flag, the deletion of objects after the fact and also will not expose items marked as inactive to enumeration consumers. Basically, it just encapsulates all the ideas of pattern 2 (and subsequently pattern 1).
Does a class like this exist? Does anyone have code for this? Or is there a better way?
I’ve been told that accessing myIntCollection.ToArray() instead of myIntCollection will solve the problem and allow me to delete inside the loop.
This seems like a bad design pattern to me, or maybe it’s fine?
Details:
The list will contain many items and I will be removing only some of them.
Inside the loop, I will be doing all sorts of processes, adding, removing etc., so the solution needs to be fairly generic.
The item that I need to delete may not be the current item in the loop. For example, I may be on item 10 of a 30 item loop and need to remove item 6 or item 26. Walking backwards through the array will no longer work because of this. ;o(

The best solution is usually to use the RemoveAll() method:
myList.RemoveAll(x => x.SomeProp == "SomeValue");
Or, if you need certain elements removed:
MyListType[] elems = new[] { elem1, elem2 };
myList.RemoveAll(x => elems.Contains(x));
This assume that your loop is solely intended for removal purposes, of course. If you do need to additional processing, then the best method is usually to use a for or while loop, since then you're not using an enumerator:
for (int i = myList.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
// Do processing here, then...
if (shouldRemoveCondition)
{
myList.RemoveAt(i);
}
}
Going backwards ensures that you don't skip any elements.
Response to Edit:
If you're going to have seemingly arbitrary elements removed, the easiest method might be to just keep track of the elements you want to remove, and then remove them all at once after. Something like this:
List<int> toRemove = new List<int>();
foreach (var elem in myList)
{
// Do some stuff
// Check for removal
if (needToRemoveAnElement)
{
toRemove.Add(elem);
}
}
// Remove everything here
myList.RemoveAll(x => toRemove.Contains(x));

If you must both enumerate a List<T> and remove from it then I suggest simply using a while loop instead of a foreach
var index = 0;
while (index < myList.Count) {
if (someCondition(myList[index])) {
myList.RemoveAt(index);
} else {
index++;
}
}

I know this post is old, but I thought I'd share what worked for me.
Create a copy of the list for enumerating, and then in the for each loop, you can process on the copied values, and remove/add/whatever with the source list.
private void ProcessAndRemove(IList<Item> list)
{
foreach (var item in list.ToList())
{
if (item.DeterminingFactor > 10)
{
list.Remove(item);
}
}
}

When you need to iterate through a list and might modify it during the loop then you are better off using a for loop:
for (int i = 0; i < myIntCollection.Count; i++)
{
if (myIntCollection[i] == 42)
{
myIntCollection.Remove(i);
i--;
}
}
Of course you must be careful, for example I decrement i whenever an item is removed as otherwise we will skip entries (an alternative is to go backwards though the list).
If you have Linq then you should just use RemoveAll as dlev has suggested.

As you enumerate the list, add the one you want to KEEP to a new list. Afterward, assign the new list to the myIntCollection
List<int> myIntCollection=new List<int>();
myIntCollection.Add(42);
List<int> newCollection=new List<int>(myIntCollection.Count);
foreach(int i in myIntCollection)
{
if (i want to delete this)
///
else
newCollection.Add(i);
}
myIntCollection = newCollection;

Let's add you code:
List<int> myIntCollection=new List<int>();
myIntCollection.Add(42);
myIntCollection.Add(12);
myIntCollection.Add(96);
myIntCollection.Add(25);
If you want to change the list while you're in a foreach, you must type .ToList()
foreach(int i in myIntCollection.ToList())
{
if (i == 42)
myIntCollection.Remove(96);
if (i == 25)
myIntCollection.Remove(42);
}

For those it may help, I wrote this Extension method to remove items matching the predicate and return the list of removed items.
public static IList<T> RemoveAllKeepRemoved<T>(this IList<T> source, Predicate<T> predicate)
{
IList<T> removed = new List<T>();
for (int i = source.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
T item = source[i];
if (predicate(item))
{
removed.Add(item);
source.RemoveAt(i);
}
}
return removed;
}

How about
int[] tmp = new int[myIntCollection.Count ()];
myIntCollection.CopyTo(tmp);
foreach(int i in tmp)
{
myIntCollection.Remove(42); //The error is no longer here.
}

If you're interested in high performance, you can use two lists. The following minimises garbage collection, maximises memory locality and never actually removes an item from a list, which is very inefficient if it's not the last item.
private void RemoveItems()
{
_newList.Clear();
foreach (var item in _list)
{
item.Process();
if (!item.NeedsRemoving())
_newList.Add(item);
}
var swap = _list;
_list = _newList;
_newList = swap;
}

Just figured I'll share my solution to a similar problem where i needed to remove items from a list while processing them.
So basically "foreach" that will remove the item from the list after it has been iterated.
My test:
var list = new List<TempLoopDto>();
list.Add(new TempLoopDto("Test1"));
list.Add(new TempLoopDto("Test2"));
list.Add(new TempLoopDto("Test3"));
list.Add(new TempLoopDto("Test4"));
list.PopForEach((item) =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"Process {item.Name}");
});
Assert.That(list.Count, Is.EqualTo(0));
I solved this with a extension method "PopForEach" that will perform a action and then remove the item from the list.
public static class ListExtensions
{
public static void PopForEach<T>(this List<T> list, Action<T> action)
{
var index = 0;
while (index < list.Count) {
action(list[index]);
list.RemoveAt(index);
}
}
}
Hope this can be helpful to any one.

Currently you are using a list. If you could use a dictionary instead, it would be much easier. I'm making some assumptions that you are really using a class instead of just a list of ints. This would work if you had some form of unique key. In the dictionary, object can be any class you have and int would be any unique key.
Dictionary<int, object> myIntCollection = new Dictionary<int, object>();
myIntCollection.Add(42, "");
myIntCollection.Add(12, "");
myIntCollection.Add(96, "");
myIntCollection.Add(25, "");
foreach (int i in myIntCollection.Keys)
{
//Check to make sure the key wasn't already removed
if (myIntCollection.ContainsKey(i))
{
if (i == 42) //You can test against the key
myIntCollection.Remove(96);
if (myIntCollection[i] == 25) //or you can test against the value
myIntCollection.Remove(42);
}
}
Or you could use
Dictionary<myUniqueClass, bool> myCollection; //Bool is just an empty place holder
The nice thing is you can do anything you want to the underlying dictionary and the key enumerator doesn't care, but it also doesn't update with added or removed entries.

removing items from a generic List<t>

I have the following method, I wish to remove items from my collection that match the product Id. Seems fairly straight forward, but i get an exception. Basically my collection is getting out of sync. So what is the best way to remove an item from a collection.
public void RemoveOrderItem(Model.Order currentOrder, int productId)
{
foreach (var orderItem in currentOrder.OrderItems)
{
if (orderItem.Product.Id == productId)
{
currentOrder.OrderItems.Remove(orderItem);
}
}
}
Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute

Modifying a collection inside a loop doesn’t work. To work around that, List has a few methods that allow “batch” modifications of a collection. In your case, use:
currentOrder.OrderItems.RemoveAll(x => x.Product.Id == productId)

You can't modify a collection while iterating it. Just use a normal for loop instead of a foreach loop.

By looping this way you can not remove items because its in collection it keeps the track of the stored items.
Easy way to do this :
authorsList.RemoveAll(x => x.ProductId == productId);
or
authorsList = authorsList.Where(x => x.ProductId!= productId).ToList();

You can't remove an item from a collection you are iterating through, you could keep track of the orderItem, then remove it after you finish looping

As you realise you can't remove an item from a collection whilst you are looping over it. I'm sure someone will be able to provided a neater LINQ solution but the following should get you going initially:
public void RemoveOrderItem(Model.Order currentOrder, int productId)
{
var selectedOrderItem = null;
foreach (var orderItem in currentOrder.OrderItems)
{
if (orderItem.Product.Id == productId)
{
selectedOrderItem = orderItem;
break;
}
}
if(selectedOrderItem != null)
currentOrder.OrderItems.Remove(selectedOrderItem);
}

"foreach" provides a "Forward-only read-only" iteration of a collection.
As a workaround, you can copy the reference to another collection and then iterate on the copied collection and remove the items from the original one.

How to print objects in an array using for/foreach?

I have a homework assigment to iterate through an object array and print out these objects using for and foreach. I'm stuck on how to do that.
Questions
When you use a foreach loop, don't you have to declare the object? So the object declared in a foreach loop is null, because it doesn't call any constructors in my Employee class.
Code Snippet
while ((worker = Employee.ReadFromFile(employeeDataReader)) != null)
{
employeeInfo[j] = worker;
j++;
}
foreach (Employee person in employeeInfo)
{
person.Print();
}
How do I print out the objects contained in an array? Am I 'doing it wrong'? Is there a better way?

I'm a little confused.
Perhaps you're also a little confused.
while ((worker = Employee.ReadFromFile(employeeDataReader)) != null)
{
employeeInfo[j] = worker;
j++;
}
this code (hopefully) creates a series of Employees. At some point in Employee.ReadFromFile, an Employee constructor is called. the constructed employee gets stuck in an array
foreach (Employee person in employeeInfo)
{
person.Print(); // method that prints out information of each object of the employee class
}
in this code, person is only null if worker in the previous loop was null (which your boundary condition prevents). you don't need to call any more constructors, because you're just pulling out previously-contructed Employees from your array.
EDIT SLaks' answer is getting downvoted, so I'll just point out his comment to the question: the length of your array is probably greater than the number of Employee's you are reading in. This accounts for the nulls. Using List<Employee>, if that is an option, for employeeInfo would avoid this issue.

I suspect that your problem is that the array isn't full, and that once your loop runs out of employees, it throws a NullReferenceException.
Instead of an array, you should use a List<T>. A List<T> will automatically resize when you call its Add method, so that it won't be too big or too small. In general, if you don't know exactly how many items you will have, you should always use a List<T> instead of an array.
For example:
List<Employee> employeeInfo = new List<Employee>();
while ((worker = Employee.ReadFromFile(employeeDataReader)) != null) {
employeeInfo.Add(worker);
}
foreach (Employee person in employeeInfo) {
person.Print(); // method that prints out information of each object of the employee class
}
Also, in your case, you don't need an array or a list; you could take it out completely and write the following:
while ((worker = Employee.ReadFromFile(employeeDataReader)) != null) {
worker.Print();
}

A foreach loop like this:
foreach (Employee person in employeeInfo) {
...
}
works pretty much like a loop like this:
for (int i = 0; i < employeeInfo.Length; i++) {
Employee person = employeeInfo[i];
...
}
So, the variable that you specify in the foreach loop gets it's values from each item in the array.
Note that the foreach loop iterates all items in the array. If you have declared a larger array than there are items in the file, you should only loop through the items that are populated:
for (int i = 0; i < j; i++) {
Employee person = employeeInfo[i];
...
}
or:
foreach (Employee person in employeeInfo.Take(j)) {
...
}

It sounds like they want you to do a
for(int i=0;i<someArray.Length;i++)
someArray[i].print();
and
foreach(SomeType item in someArray)
item.print();
I suggest looking into the difference on your own :)
EDIT:
You might find this a good read:
http://www.csharp-station.com/Tutorials/lesson04.aspx

You should probably create an Employee ToString() method that prints out a string representation of the Employee, Then you can do something like Console.WriteLine(emp.ToString()); in your for loop.

Not sure I understand.
To iterate through a collection of objects, you have the basic concept down.
int[] integerArray = new integerArray[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
foreach (int i in integerArray)
{
Console.Writeline("{0} is the integer.", i);
}

I agree you should use the List<T> since it easily resizes dynamically.
You don't show it here but I assume you have something like
EmployeeInfo[] employeeInfo = new EmployeeInfo[10];
Up above. The problem is that if you only load 5 items in your ReadFromFile method then items 5-9 will be uninitialized.
You could also do:
foreach (Employee person in employeeInfo)
{
if (person != null)
{
person.Print(); // method that prints out information of each object of the employee class
}
}

Best way to remove items from a collection

What is the best way to approach removing items from a collection in C#, once the item is known, but not it's index. This is one way to do it, but it seems inelegant at best.
//Remove the existing role assignment for the user.
int cnt = 0;
int assToDelete = 0;
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments)
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name == shortName)
{
assToDelete = cnt;
}
cnt++;
}
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(assToDelete);
What I would really like to do is find the item to remove by property (in this case, name) without looping through the entire collection and using 2 additional variables.

If RoleAssignments is a List<T> you can use the following code.
workSpace.RoleAssignments.RemoveAll(x =>x.Member.Name == shortName);

If you want to access members of the collection by one of their properties, you might consider using a Dictionary<T> or KeyedCollection<T> instead. This way you don't have to search for the item you're looking for.
Otherwise, you could at least do this:
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments)
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name == shortName)
{
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(spAssignment);
break;
}
}

#smaclell asked why reverse iteration was more efficient in in a comment to #sambo99.
Sometimes it's more efficient. Consider you have a list of people, and you want to remove or filter all customers with a credit rating < 1000;
We have the following data
"Bob" 999
"Mary" 999
"Ted" 1000
If we were to iterate forward, we'd soon get into trouble
for( int idx = 0; idx < list.Count ; idx++ )
{
if( list[idx].Rating < 1000 )
{
list.RemoveAt(idx); // whoops!
}
}
At idx = 0 we remove Bob, which then shifts all remaining elements left. The next time through the loop idx = 1, but
list[1] is now Ted instead of Mary. We end up skipping Mary by mistake. We could use a while loop, and we could introduce more variables.
Or, we just reverse iterate:
for (int idx = list.Count-1; idx >= 0; idx--)
{
if (list[idx].Rating < 1000)
{
list.RemoveAt(idx);
}
}
All the indexes to the left of the removed item stay the same, so you don't skip any items.
The same principle applies if you're given a list of indexes to remove from an array. In order to keep things straight you need to sort the list and then remove the items from highest index to lowest.
Now you can just use Linq and declare what you're doing in a straightforward manner.
list.RemoveAll(o => o.Rating < 1000);
For this case of removing a single item, it's no more efficient iterating forwards or backwards. You could also use Linq for this.
int removeIndex = list.FindIndex(o => o.Name == "Ted");
if( removeIndex != -1 )
{
list.RemoveAt(removeIndex);
}

If it's an ICollection then you won't have a RemoveAll method. Here's an extension method that will do it:
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this ICollection<T> source,
Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("source", "source is null.");
if (predicate == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("predicate", "predicate is null.");
source.Where(predicate).ToList().ForEach(e => source.Remove(e));
}
Based on:
http://phejndorf.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/a-removeall-extension-for-the-collection-class/

For a simple List structure the most efficient way seems to be using the Predicate RemoveAll implementation.
Eg.
workSpace.RoleAssignments.RemoveAll(x =>x.Member.Name == shortName);
The reasons are:
The Predicate/Linq RemoveAll method is implemented in List and has access to the internal array storing the actual data. It will shift the data and resize the internal array.
The RemoveAt method implementation is quite slow, and will copy the entire underlying array of data into a new array. This means reverse iteration is useless for List
If you are stuck implementing this in a the pre c# 3.0 era. You have 2 options.
The easily maintainable option. Copy all the matching items into a new list and and swap the underlying list.
Eg.
List<int> list2 = new List<int>() ;
foreach (int i in GetList())
{
if (!(i % 2 == 0))
{
list2.Add(i);
}
}
list2 = list2;
Or
The tricky slightly faster option, which involves shifting all the data in the list down when it does not match and then resizing the array.
If you are removing stuff really frequently from a list, perhaps another structure like a HashTable (.net 1.1) or a Dictionary (.net 2.0) or a HashSet (.net 3.5) are better suited for this purpose.

What type is the collection? If it's List, you can use the helpful "RemoveAll":
int cnt = workspace.RoleAssignments
.RemoveAll(spa => spa.Member.Name == shortName)
(This works in .NET 2.0. Of course, if you don't have the newer compiler, you'll have to use "delegate (SPRoleAssignment spa) { return spa.Member.Name == shortName; }" instead of the nice lambda syntax.)
Another approach if it's not a List, but still an ICollection:
var toRemove = workspace.RoleAssignments
.FirstOrDefault(spa => spa.Member.Name == shortName)
if (toRemove != null) workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(toRemove);
This requires the Enumerable extension methods. (You can copy the Mono ones in, if you are stuck on .NET 2.0). If it's some custom collection that cannot take an item, but MUST take an index, some of the other Enumerable methods, such as Select, pass in the integer index for you.

This is my generic solution
public static IEnumerable<T> Remove<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, Func<T, bool> match)
{
var list = items.ToList();
for (int idx = 0; idx < list.Count(); idx++)
{
if (match(list[idx]))
{
list.RemoveAt(idx);
idx--; // the list is 1 item shorter
}
}
return list.AsEnumerable();
}
It would look much simpler if extension methods support passing by reference !
usage:
var result = string[]{"mike", "john", "ali"}
result = result.Remove(x => x.Username == "mike").ToArray();
Assert.IsTrue(result.Length == 2);
EDIT: ensured that the list looping remains valid even when deleting items by decrementing the index (idx).

Here is a pretty good way to do it
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555972
System.Collections.ArrayList arr = new System.Collections.ArrayList();
arr.Add("1");
arr.Add("2");
arr.Add("3");
/*This throws an exception
foreach (string s in arr)
{
arr.Remove(s);
}
*/
//where as this works correctly
Console.WriteLine(arr.Count);
foreach (string s in new System.Collections.ArrayList(arr))
{
arr.Remove(s);
}
Console.WriteLine(arr.Count);
Console.ReadKey();

There is another approach you can take depending on how you're using your collection. If you're downloading the assignments one time (e.g., when the app runs), you could translate the collection on the fly into a hashtable where:
shortname => SPRoleAssignment
If you do this, then when you want to remove an item by short name, all you need to do is remove the item from the hashtable by key.
Unfortunately, if you're loading these SPRoleAssignments a lot, that obviously isn't going to be any more cost efficient in terms of time. The suggestions other people made about using Linq would be good if you're using a new version of the .NET Framework, but otherwise, you'll have to stick to the method you're using.

Similar to Dictionary Collection point of view, I have done this.
Dictionary<string, bool> sourceDict = new Dictionary<string, bool>();
sourceDict.Add("Sai", true);
sourceDict.Add("Sri", false);
sourceDict.Add("SaiSri", true);
sourceDict.Add("SaiSriMahi", true);
var itemsToDelete = sourceDict.Where(DictItem => DictItem.Value == false);
foreach (var item in itemsToDelete)
{
sourceDict.Remove(item.Key);
}
Note:
Above code will fail in .Net Client Profile (3.5 and 4.5) also some viewers mentioned it is
Failing for them in .Net4.0 as well not sure which settings are causing the problem.
So replace with below code (.ToList()) for Where statement, to avoid that error. “Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute.”
var itemsToDelete = sourceDict.Where(DictItem => DictItem.Value == false).ToList();
Per MSDN From .Net4.5 onwards Client Profile are discontinued. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912(v=vs.110).aspx

Save your items first, than delete them.
var itemsToDelete = Items.Where(x => !!!your condition!!!).ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < itemsToDelete.Length; ++i)
Items.Remove(itemsToDelete[i]);
You need to override GetHashCode() in your Item class.

The best way to do it is by using linq.
Example class:
public class Product
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Price { get; set; }
}
Linq query:
var subCollection = collection1.RemoveAll(w => collection2.Any(q => q.Name == w.Name));
This query will remove all elements from collection1 if Name match any element Name from collection2
Remember to use: using System.Linq;

To do this while looping through the collection and not to get the modifying a collection exception, this is the approach I've taken in the past (note the .ToList() at the end of the original collection, this creates another collection in memory, then you can modify the existing collection)
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments.ToList())
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name == shortName)
{
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove(spAssignment);
}
}

If you have got a List<T>, then List<T>.RemoveAll is your best bet. There can't be anything more efficient. Internally it does the array moving in one shot, not to mention it is O(N).
If all you got is an IList<T> or an ICollection<T> you got roughly these three options:
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this IList<T> ilist, Predicate<T> predicate) // O(N^2)
{
for (var index = ilist.Count - 1; index >= 0; index--)
{
var item = ilist[index];
if (predicate(item))
{
ilist.RemoveAt(index);
}
}
}
or
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this ICollection<T> icollection, Predicate<T> predicate) // O(N)
{
var nonMatchingItems = new List<T>();
// Move all the items that do not match to another collection.
foreach (var item in icollection)
{
if (!predicate(item))
{
nonMatchingItems.Add(item);
}
}
// Clear the collection and then copy back the non-matched items.
icollection.Clear();
foreach (var item in nonMatchingItems)
{
icollection.Add(item);
}
}
or
public static void RemoveAll<T>(this ICollection<T> icollection, Func<T, bool> predicate) // O(N^2)
{
foreach (var item in icollection.Where(predicate).ToList())
{
icollection.Remove(item);
}
}
Go for either 1 or 2.
1 is lighter on memory and faster if you have less deletes to perform (i.e. predicate is false most of the times).
2 is faster if you have more deletes to perform.
3 is the cleanest code but performs poorly IMO. Again all that depends on input data.
For some benchmarking details see https://github.com/dotnet/BenchmarkDotNet/issues/1505

A lot of good responses here; I especially like the lambda expressions...very clean. I was remiss, however, in not specifying the type of Collection. This is a SPRoleAssignmentCollection (from MOSS) that only has Remove(int) and Remove(SPPrincipal), not the handy RemoveAll(). So, I have settled on this, unless there is a better suggestion.
foreach (SPRoleAssignment spAssignment in workspace.RoleAssignments)
{
if (spAssignment.Member.Name != shortName) continue;
workspace.RoleAssignments.Remove((SPPrincipal)spAssignment.Member);
break;
}

Remove repetitive, hard coded loops and conditions in C#

I have a class that compares 2 instances of the same objects, and generates a list of their differences. This is done by looping through the key collections and filling a set of other collections with a list of what has changed (this may make more sense after viewing the code below). This works, and generates an object that lets me know what exactly has been added and removed between the "old" object and the "new" one.
My question/concern is this...it is really ugly, with tons of loops and conditions. Is there a better way to store/approach this, without having to rely so heavily on endless groups of hard-coded conditions?
public void DiffSteps()
{
try
{
//Confirm that there are 2 populated objects to compare
if (NewStep.Id != Guid.Empty && SavedStep.Id != Guid.Empty)
{
//<TODO> Find a good way to compare quickly if the objects are exactly the same...hash?
//Compare the StepDoc collections:
OldDocs = SavedStep.StepDocs;
NewDocs = NewStep.StepDocs;
Collection<StepDoc> docstoDelete = new Collection<StepDoc>();
foreach (StepDoc oldDoc in OldDocs)
{
bool delete = false;
foreach (StepDoc newDoc in NewDocs)
{
if (newDoc.DocId == oldDoc.DocId)
{
delete = true;
}
}
if (delete)
docstoDelete.Add(oldDoc);
}
foreach (StepDoc doc in docstoDelete)
{
OldDocs.Remove(doc);
NewDocs.Remove(doc);
}
//Same loop(s) for StepUsers...omitted for brevity
//This is a collection of users to delete; it is the collection
//of users that has not changed. So, this collection also needs to be checked
//to see if the permisssions (or any other future properties) have changed.
foreach (StepUser user in userstoDelete)
{
//Compare the two
StepUser oldUser = null;
StepUser newUser = null;
foreach(StepUser oldie in OldUsers)
{
if (user.UserId == oldie.UserId)
oldUser = oldie;
}
foreach (StepUser newie in NewUsers)
{
if (user.UserId == newie.UserId)
newUser = newie;
}
if(oldUser != null && newUser != null)
{
if (oldUser.Role != newUser.Role)
UpdatedRoles.Add(newUser.Name, newUser.Role);
}
OldUsers.Remove(user);
NewUsers.Remove(user);
}
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
string errorMessage =
String.Format("Error generating diff between Step objects {0} and {1}", NewStep.Id, SavedStep.Id);
log.Error(errorMessage,ex);
throw;
}
}
The targeted framework is 3.5.

Are you using .NET 3.5? I'm sure LINQ to Objects would make a lot of this much simpler.
Another thing to think about is that if you've got a lot of code with a common pattern, where just a few things change (e.g. "which property am I comparing?" then that's a good candidate for a generic method taking a delegate to represent that difference.
EDIT: Okay, now we know we can use LINQ:
Step 1: Reduce nesting
Firstly I'd take out one level of nesting. Instead of:
if (NewStep.Id != Guid.Empty && SavedStep.Id != Guid.Empty)
{
// Body
}
I'd do:
if (NewStep.Id != Guid.Empty && SavedStep.Id != Guid.Empty)
{
return;
}
// Body
Early returns like that can make code much more readable.
Step 2: Finding docs to delete
This would be much nicer if you could simply specify a key function to Enumerable.Intersect. You can specify an equality comparer, but building one of those is a pain, even with a utility library. Ah well.
var oldDocIds = OldDocs.Select(doc => doc.DocId);
var newDocIds = NewDocs.Select(doc => doc.DocId);
var deletedIds = oldDocIds.Intersect(newDocIds).ToDictionary(x => x);
var deletedDocs = oldDocIds.Where(doc => deletedIds.Contains(doc.DocId));
Step 3: Removing the docs
Either use the existing foreach loop, or change the properties. If your properties are actually of type List<T> then you could use RemoveAll.
Step 4: Updating and removing users
foreach (StepUser deleted in usersToDelete)
{
// Should use SingleOfDefault here if there should only be one
// matching entry in each of NewUsers/OldUsers. The
// code below matches your existing loop.
StepUser oldUser = OldUsers.LastOrDefault(u => u.UserId == deleted.UserId);
StepUser newUser = NewUsers.LastOrDefault(u => u.UserId == deleted.UserId);
// Existing code here using oldUser and newUser
}
One option to simplify things even further would be to implement an IEqualityComparer using UserId (and one for docs with DocId).

As you are using at least .NET 2.0 I recommend implement Equals and GetHashCode ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7h9bszxx.aspx ) on StepDoc. As a hint to how it can clean up your code you could have something like this:
Collection<StepDoc> docstoDelete = new Collection<StepDoc>();
foreach (StepDoc oldDoc in OldDocs)
{
bool delete = false;
foreach (StepDoc newDoc in NewDocs)
{
if (newDoc.DocId == oldDoc.DocId)
{
delete = true;
}
}
if (delete) docstoDelete.Add(oldDoc);
}
foreach (StepDoc doc in docstoDelete)
{
OldDocs.Remove(doc);
NewDocs.Remove(doc);
}
with this:
oldDocs.FindAll(newDocs.Contains).ForEach(delegate(StepDoc doc) {
oldDocs.Remove(doc);
newDocs.Remove(doc);
});
This assumes oldDocs is a List of StepDoc.

If both StepDocs and StepUsers implement IComparable<T>, and they are stored in collections that implement IList<T>, then you can use the following helper method to simplify this function. Just call it twice, once with StepDocs, and once with StepUsers. Use the beforeRemoveCallback to implement the special logic used to do your role updates. I'm assuming the collections don't contain duplicates. I've left out argument checks.
public delegate void BeforeRemoveMatchCallback<T>(T item1, T item2);
public static void RemoveMatches<T>(
IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2,
BeforeRemoveMatchCallback<T> beforeRemoveCallback)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
// looping backwards lets us safely modify the collection "in flight"
// without requiring a temporary collection (as required by a foreach
// solution)
for(int i = list1.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
for(int j = list2.Count - 1; j >= 0; j--)
{
if(list1[i].CompareTo(list2[j]) == 0)
{
// do any cleanup stuff in this function, like your role assignments
if(beforeRemoveCallback != null)
beforeRemoveCallback(list[i], list[j]);
list1.RemoveAt(i);
list2.RemoveAt(j);
break;
}
}
}
}
Here is a sample beforeRemoveCallback for your updates code:
BeforeRemoveMatchCallback<StepUsers> callback =
delegate(StepUsers oldUser, StepUsers newUser)
{
if(oldUser.Role != newUser.Role)
UpdatedRoles.Add(newUser.Name, newUser.Role);
};

What framework are you targeting? (This will make a difference in the answer.)
Why is this a void function?
Shouldn't the signature look like:
DiffResults results = object.CompareTo(object2);

If you want to hide the traversal of the tree-like structure you could create an IEnumerator subclass that hides the "ugly" looping constructs and then use CompareTo interface:
MyTraverser t =new Traverser(oldDocs, newDocs);
foreach (object oldOne in t)
{
if (oldOne.CompareTo(t.CurrentNewOne) != 0)
{
// use RTTI to figure out what to do with the object
}
}
However, I'm not at all sure that this particularly simplifies anything. I don't mind seeing the nested traversal structures. The code is nested, but not complex or particularly difficult to understand.

Using multiple lists in foreach is easy. Do this:
foreach (TextBox t in col)
{
foreach (TextBox d in des) // here des and col are list having textboxes
{
// here remove first element then and break it
RemoveAt(0);
break;
}
}
It works similar as it is foreach (TextBox t in col && TextBox d in des)