Develop Reference

LINQ Conditional OrderBy

I'm trying to do a conditional OrderBy but it's having no effect. The List outputs the same with default ordering.
I've tried both approaches suggested in this question Conditional "orderby" sort order in LINQ
var query = _context.Groups
.Where(gr => gr.Status != ((sbyte)ActiveStatus.DELETED)
&& gr.OrganisationId == user.OrganisationId
&& (search != null && gr.Name != null ? (gr.Name.Contains(search)) : true == true)
)
.Select(GroupReportModel.Projection);
if(!pager.Sort.HasValue || pager.Sort.Value == ((int)Sort.MODIFIED))
query.OrderByDescending(gr => gr.Created.Date);
if(pager.Sort.Value == ((int)Sort.NAME))
query.OrderByDescending(gr => gr.Name);
pager.TotalRecords = query.Count();
var list = query.Skip(pager.PageCount != null ? pager.PageCount.Value * (pager.Page.Value) : 0)
.Take(pager.PageCount != null ? pager.PageCount.Value : 0)
.ToList();

LINQ methods do not mutate the query object, they return a new one, you need to reassign it:
if(!pager.Sort.HasValue || pager.Sort.Value == ((int)Sort.MODIFIED))
query = query.OrderByDescending(gr => gr.Created.Date);
if(pager.Sort.Value == ((int)Sort.NAME))
query = query.OrderByDescending(gr => gr.Name);
....

How to write a linq query to exclude some of the records?

This is my LINQ
IList<string> ExceptList = new List<string>() { "045C388E96", "C9B735E166", "02860EB192", "2401016471" };
var listusers = context.USER_INFO.Where(x => x.ACTIVATED
&& x.COMP.EQUIPMENT.Count(y => y.STATUS == (int)STATUSEQ.ACTIVE) > 0
&& (x.LAST_LOGIN < time)
&& !ExceptList.Contains(x.COMP.CODE)
&& !x.IS_LOCK
|| !x.COMP.IS_LOCK)
.Select(x => new EmailOutOfDateLoginModel
{
COMPCode = x.COMP.CODE,
First_Name = x.FIRST_NAME,
Last_Name = x.LAST_NAME,
Total_EQ = x.COMP.EQUIPMENT.Count(y => y.STATUS == (int)STATUSEQ.ACTIVE),
User_Email = x.USER_EMAIL
}).ToList();
I am not sure why my ExceptList is not working. I want to exclude any record that contaisn any of the CODE in the ExceptList

Put parentheses around the expressions containing the && logic. The || at the end is only matched with the !x.IS_LOCK || !x.COMP.IS_LOCK otherwise.

According your linq all records where (!x.COMP.IS_LOCK==true) will be included in the query. Try this "where" part:
.Where(x => x.ACTIVATED
&& x.COMP.EQUIPMENT.Count(y => y.STATUS == (int)STATUSEQ.ACTIVE) > 0
&& (x.LAST_LOGIN < time)
&& !ExceptList.Contains(x.COMP.CODE)
&& !(x.IS_LOCK && x.COMP.IS_LOCK))

LINQ Query with method syntax

My requirement is to make boolean value (IsPC=true) only if I found any value with IsCurrent = true from the list and second condition is to filter the list with G or W codes and third condition is to check the PCBNumber length ==15 with only one from the list.
How short can i able to reduce the below query using LINQ method syntax
below is my query
var CurrentQ= p.List.Where(x => x.IsConCurrent== true);
if (CurrentQ.Count() > 0)
{
var NCurrentQwithWorQ = p.List.Where(x => x.Codes == Codes.W|| x.Codes== Codes.Q).Count();
if (NCurrentQwithWorQ != null)
{
var PCBNumber = p.List.Where(x => x.PCBNumber .Length == 15).Count();
if (PCBNumber == 1)
{
isPC = true;
}
}
}

You can use all conditions in same query like below,
var PCBNumber= p.List.Where(x => x.IsConCurrent== true && (x.Codes == Codes.W|| x.Codes== Codes.Q) && x.PCBNumber.Length == 15);
if (PCBNumber !=null && PCBNumber.Count() == 1)
{
isPC = true;
}

I'm not trying to debug what you wrote, but isn't this really what you're looking for--that is, daisy-chaining your Where conditions?
var isPC = p.List.Where(x => x.IsConCurrent == true).Where(x => x.Codes == Codes.W || x.Codes == Codes.Q).Where(x => x.PCBNumber.Length == 15).Count() == 1;

Both solutions suggested above are correct.
p.List.Where(x => x.IsConCurrent== true && (x.Codes == Codes.W|| x.Codes== Codes.Q) && x.PCBNumber.Length == 15);
p.List.Where(x => x.IsConCurrent == true).Where(x => x.Codes == Codes.W || x.Codes == Codes.Q).Where(x => x.PCBNumber.Length == 15).Count()
Actually they are performed in the same way. The Where function does not force immediate iteration through the data source. Only when you execute the Count function, LINQ will process row by row and execute criterion by criterion to find out which values should be calculated.
I can only suggest you add the Take(2) operator after the where clause. In this case LINQ will stop after finding the first two rows that matches provided criterion and other rows will not be processed.
p.List.Where(x => x.IsConCurrent == true)
.Where(x => x.Codes == Codes.W || x.Codes == Codes.Q)
.Where(x => x.PCBNumber.Length == 15)
.Take(2).Count()

Faster way to filter a list of objects in to another list based on a condition

I have a list ( ios contacts ) which i need to filter based on the firstname , last name and email starting with the match string. I have about 5000 contacts and currently it takes about 2 seconds to filter results. Here is my code.
var personList = people.FindAll (p =>
(p.LastName != null && p.LastName.IndexOf (findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0) || (p.FirstName != null && p.FirstName.IndexOf (findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0
|| (p.GetEmails ().ToList ().Count > 0 && (p.GetEmails ().ToList ().FindAll (e => e.Value.IndexOf (findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0).Count > 0)))
);
Can anyone suggest a faster way to do this? Thanks

Using IndexOf(..) == 0 to compare is the same as asking if that string (Name, LastName or Email) starts with the given findstr. If instead you want to know if the string contains de findstr use the String.Contains or IndexOf(..) != -1
I would also separate those predicates for code clarity like this:
Func<string, bool> filter = s => !String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(s) && s.StartsWith(findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
var personList = people.Where(p => filter(p.FistName)
|| filter(p.LastName)
|| p.GetEmails().Select(e => e.Value).Any(filter));
Now if you want you can do that in parallel:
var personList = people.AsParallel().
Where(p => filter(p.FistName)
|| filter(p.LastName)
|| p.GetEmails().Select(e => e.Value).Any(filter));

Instead of FindAll, and calls to ToList and then Count , use:
var personList = people.Where(p => (p.LastName != null
&& p.LastName.IndexOf(findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0)
|| (
p.FirstName != null && p.FirstName.IndexOf(findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0
|| (p.GetEmails().Count > 0 && (p.GetEmails()
.Where(e =>
e.Value.IndexOf(findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0).Count > 0))
));

You can use:
Any() instead of ToList().Count > 0
First() and then check if it matches the condition instead of IndexOf (findstr, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) == 0
You can find full list of queues here.

How to use DATEADD over column in LINQ - DateAdd is not recognized by LINQ

I am trying to invalidate requests of friendship that were reponded less than 30 days ago.
var requestIgnored = context.Request
.Where(c => c.IdRequest == result.IdRequest
&& c.IdRequestTypes == 1
&& c.Accepted == false
&& DateTime.Now <= (((DateTime)c.DateResponse).AddDays(30)))
.SingleOrDefault();
c.DateResponse is of type DateTime?. The error I am having is :
LINQ does not recognize the command .AddDays

Edit: If you're using EntityFramework >= 6.0, use DbFunctions.AddDays. For older versions of Entity Framework, use EntityFunctions.AddDays:
var requestIgnored = context.Request
.Where(c => c.IdRequest == result.IdRequest
&& c.IdRequestTypes == 1
&& c.Accepted == false
&& DateTime.Now <= DbFunctions.AddDays(c.DateResponse, 30))
.SingleOrDefault();

You might try this:
var thirtyDaysAgo = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-30);
var requestIgnored = context.Request
.Where(c =>
c.IdRequest == result.IdRequest &&
c.IdRequestTypes == 1 &&
c.Accepted == false &&
c.DateResponse.HasValue &&
thirtyDaysAgo <= c.DateResponse.Value)
.SingleOrDefault();