Develop Reference

How to make reusable conditions that can be used in queryables? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to reuse where clauses in Linq To Sql queries
(4 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
So in a function I've a large queryable and I apply a bunch of where cause on it based on other conditions.
Like in this example:
query.Where(i =>
_context.FicDernierEvt
.Where(y => y.VteAffaire == null && y.ApvAffaire == null)
.Select(y => y.IdFicheCrm)
.Contains(i.Id)
);
I've this condition _context.FicDernierEvt.Where(y => y.VteAffaire == null && y.ApvAffaire == null).Select(y => y.IdFicheCrm).Contains(i.Id) that is used a lot in my code.
I would like to avoid having this all accross my code so i've tried to make a function:
private bool isProspect(FicFicheCrm ficheCrm){
return _context.FicDernierEvt
.Where(y => y.VteAffaire == null && y.ApvAffaire == null)
.Select(y => y.IdFicheCrm)
.Contains(ficheCrm.Id);
}
So i could use it this way:
query.Where(i => isProspect(i));
But it didn't worked since, it's just not mean to be done that way.
Do someone have an idea on how to make reusable conditions like this to be used in queryables ?

My advice would be to extend LINQ with a Where method that contains your predicate.
If you are not familiar with Extension methods, consider to read Extension Methods Demystified
You fogrot to tell us what type of IQueryable<...> you store in _context.FicDernierEvt, but let's assume it is IQueryable<FicDernierEvt>. In other words, assume that _context.FicDernierEvt is a table of FicDernierEvts.
Requirement Procedure GetIdFics (TODO: invent proper name) takes as input an IQueryable<FicDernierEvt>, keeps only those ficDernierEvts that have a null value for both properties VteAffaire and ApvAffaire, and returns from every remaining ficDernierEvt the value of property ficDernierEvt.IdFic
I don't know the type of IdFic, but let's assume it is an int
public static IQueryable<int> GetIdFics( // TODO: invent proper name
this IQueryable<FicDernierEvt> source)
{
return source.Where(ficDernierEvt => ficDernierEvt.VteAffaire == null
&& ficDernierEvt.ApvAffaire == null)
.Select(ficDernierEvt => ficDernierEvt.IdFic);
}
That's all!
Usage:
IQueryable<int> myIdFics = _context.FicDernierEvt.GetIdFics();
You say you have this Where/Select in a lot of places:
var oldIdFics = _context.FicDernierEvt
.Where(ficDernierEvt.Date.Year < 2010)
.GetIdfics();
var invalidIdFics = _context.FicDernierEvt.GetIdFics()
.Where(idFic => idFic <= 0);
You can even use it in a more complicate LINQ statement:
IQueryable<FicDernierEvt> unpaidFicDernierEvts = this.GetUnpaidFicDernierEvts();
int customerId = this.GetCustomerId(customerName);
var largestUnpaidCustomerIdFic = unpaidFicDernierEvts
.Where(unpaidEvt => unpaidEvt.CustomerId == customerId)
.GetIdFics()
.Max();

LINQ Query OrderByDescending not recognizing lambda expression

I'm fairly new to LINQ, but I think I'm getting the hang of it.
I'm trying to group a select statement, then order it descending. I've got pretty far just looking through other questions, but when I try to attach the OrderByDescending() function, lambda expressions I try to add are not recognized by intellisense.
var test = db.UserPokemons.Where(x => x.PkmnDataId == pokemon.Id && x.StepsToHatch == 0)
.GroupBy(n => n.User1.Country).OrderByDescending();
So, for example, .OrderbyDescending(x => x.User1.Country) does not contain a definition for User1.
Is this to do with the ordering of my statements? I think it's because I'm calling GroupBy before OrderBy, but I can't wrap my head around how to fix it.
How can I order my groups?
Oh! Nearly forgot - I only want the top 3 countries, so is there an easy way to restrict that as well?
How to use GroupBy and OrderByDescending in the same LINQ function
How to select only the top/first 3 groups
Thanks for any help!

I think this is what you want:
var test = db.UserPokemons.Where(x => x.PkmnDataId == pokemon.Id && x.StepsToHatch == 0).
GroupBy(n => n.User1.Country).Select(x=>x.First()).OrderByDescending().Take(3);

var countriesInOrder = db.UserPokemons.Where(x => x.PkmnDataId == pokemon.Id && x.StepsToHatch == 0).
GroupBy(n => n.User1.Country).OrderByDescending(x => x.Key).Take(3).ToArray();
Got it - the lambda expression needs to go to the x.Key after grouping.
(Thanks jitender!)

Sitecore: efficient way to use LINQ to compare against an ID

I have a LINQ query retrieving a list of , such as this:
var results = SearchContext.GetQueryable<Person>()
.Where(i => i.Enabled)
.Where(i => i.TemplateName == "Person")
.Random(6);
Each object of type "Person" has a "Location" field which is also a Glass mapped item, and hence has an ID; I would like to only select items whose Location has a specific ID.
How can I go about doing this in an efficient manner?
EDIT: I should probably clarify that I am unable to perform this comparison, efficiently or not. Because the GUID is an object and I cannot perform ToString in a LINQ query, I am unable to only pick the items whose Location item has a specific ID. Any clues on how this could be achieved?
EDIT 2: Adding the clause
.Where(i => i.Location.Id == this.Id)
Doesn't work, for... some reason, as I'm unable to debug what LINQ "sees". If I convert the other ID I'm comparing it against to string this way:
var theOtherID = this.Id.ToString("N");
Then it works with this LINQ line:
.Where(i => i["Location"].Contains(theOtherID))
I still have no idea why.

One approach is to include a separate property on Person that is ignored by Glass mapper, but can be used in searches:
[SitecoreIgnore]
[Sitecore.ContentSearch.IndexField("location")]
public Sitecore.Data.ID LocationID { get; set; }
You can use this in your search as follows:
Sitecore.Data.ID locationId = Sitecore.Data.ID.Parse(stringOrGuid);
var results = SearchContext.GetQueryable<Person>()
.Where(i => i.Enabled)
.Where(i => i.TemplateName == "Person")
.Where(i => i.LocationID == locationId)
.Random(6);
I think the efficiency of using multiple where clauses vs. conditionals is debatable. They will likely result in the same Lucene query being performed. I would prefer readability over optimization in this instance, but that's just me.

I can't think of a more efficient methods than using a simple where statement like in:
var results = SearchContext.GetQueryable<Person>()
.Where(i => i.Enabled && i.TemplateName == "Person" &&
i.Location != null && i.Location.Id == 1)
.Random(6);
Keep in mind that if you use the && statement instead of a where for each parameter, you reduce the complexity of the algorithm.
You could also use an Inverse Navigation Property on Location to a virtual ICollection<Person> and then be able to do this:
var results = SearchContext.GetQueryable<Location>()
.Where(i => i.Id == 1 && i.Persons.Where(p => p.Enabled && p.TemplateName == "Person").Any())
.Random(6);
The first option would still be the most efficient, because the second one uses sub-queries. But it is worth knowing you can do your search the other way.

LINQ and C# - Dealing with a potentially null parameter

I am relatively new to LINQ but looking for some "best practice" advice on how to deal with the following. I know there are many ways to deal with this, but looking to see how more experienced people would write the code.
My LINQ at present:
var company = (from c in db.RPTINQUIRies
where c.CONCOM == concom && c.LOPER == engineer
orderby c.CREATION_DATE descending
select c);
Now the ActionResult parameter that is being passed in here (engineer) may or may not be empty. Where it is empty, I essentially want to remove the && C.LOPER == engineer clause all together.
What's the best way to deal with this?

It sounds like you just want:
where c.CONCOM == concom && (engineer == null || c.LOPER == engineer)
Alternatively, you could build up the query step by step:
var query = db.RPTINQUIRies.Where(c => c.CONCOM == concom);
if (engineer != null)
{
query = query.Where(c => c.LOPER == engineer);
}
query = query.OrderByDescending(c => c.CREATION_DATE);

Why Reverse() cannot be converted into SQL?

My application is running under ASP.NET 4.0, which uses BLToolkti as ORM tool.
I have some queryable expression:
var q = db.GetTable<T>()
.Where(tb=>tb.TeamId==MyTeamId && tb.Season==MySeasonId)
.OrderByDescending(tb=>tb.Id)
.Take(20)
.Reverse()
Attempt to convert q.ToList() causes the following error:
Sequence 'Table(TeamBudget).Where(tb => ((tb.TeamId ==
value(VfmElita.DataLogicLayer.Teams.Team+TeamBudget+<>c__DisplayClass78).teamId)
AndAlso (tb.Season ==
value(VfmElita.DataLogicLayer.Teams.Team+TeamBudget+<>c__DisplayClass78).season))).OrderByDescending(tb
=> Convert(tb.Id)).Take(20).Reverse()' cannot be converted to SQL.
If I remove ".Reverse()" from the queryable object everything works fine.
What is the reason why queryable object with .Reverse() cannot be converted into SQL? Is that BLToolkit limitation? Is there any solution workaround for that?
Thank you!

It's pretty clear what the other LINQ methods convert to (where, order by, top(20)), but what would Reverse() convert to? I can't think of an SQL statement I've seen that mimics that behavior, and when you're querying the database your LINQ statement must ultimately resolve to valid SQL.
This may not be what you're going for, but one option would be to execute the query first using ToList(), then apply Reverse():
var q = db.GetTable<T>()
.Where(tb => tb.TeamId == MyTeamId && tb.Season == MySeasonId)
.OrderByDescending(tb => tb.Id)
.Take(20)
.ToList()
.Reverse();
Alternatively, you could get the count and skip that many records first, although this could be inaccurate if the number of records change between calls. Plus it's two queries instead of just one.
var totalRecords = db.GetTable<T>()
.Count(tb => tb.TeamId == MyTeamId && tb.Season == MySeasonId);
var q = db.GetTable<T>()
.Where(tb => tb.TeamId == MyTeamId && tb.Season == MySeasonId)
.Order(tb => tb.Id)
.Skip(totalRecords)
.Take(20);