Search records with code pattern in column value c# - c#

I have one code of employee which is A-B-C-D- . Now I want to search all records which are starting with A- till it rich A-B-C-D-. I have tried below code:
var result = db.Employee.Where(x=> x.EmployeeCode.StartsWith("A-B-C-D-"));
Above code gives me only one record. But I want all records which starts with A- then A-B- then A-B-C- and then equals to A-B-C-D-.
Any hint or idea is appreciated.

Have you tried this?
var result = db.Employee
.Where(x=> x.EmployeeCode.StartsWith("A-")
|| x.EmployeeCode.StartsWith("A-B-")
|| x.EmployeeCode.StartsWith("A-B-C-")
|| x.EmployeeCode.StartsWith("A-B-C-D-");
As you say in the comment that it must be dynamic, then do something like this:
string code = "A-B-C-D-";
var predicates = new List<Expression<Func<Customer,bool>>>();
for (int i = 0; i < code.Length; i++)
{
if (code[i] == '-')
{
var prefix = code.Substring(0, i + 1);
predicates.Add(x => x.EmployeeCode.StartsWith(prefix));
}
}
var oredPredicates = ...; // Keep reading!
...
var result = db.Employee.Where(oredPredicate);
Now, you have a lis of predicates, and have to combine them with || (or). To do so it's a bit messy, but there are solutions, for example like in this SO Q&A's:
Combining two expressions (Expression>)
Combine two Linq lambda expressions
How can I combine two lambda expressions without using Invoke method?
C# how to combine two expressions into a new one?
Once you have all the predicates combined, use it as parameter for your .Where() function.
Unfortunately the most complicated part of combining the expressions is unavoidable, and it's the toughest part to solve this problem, but it works. Please, read the 3 Q&A's, to get insight in what you're doing and get the code that best suits you (beware that using the simple Expression.OrAlso would not directly work, because the x param in each lambda is different for each created expression)

Related

C# and LINQ - arbitrary statement instead of let

Let's say I'm doing a LINQ query like this (this is LINQ to Objects, BTW):
var rows =
from t in totals
let name = Utilities.GetName(t)
orderby name
select t;
So the GetName method just calculates a display name from a Total object and is a decent use of the let keyword. But let's say I have another method, Utilities.Sum() that applies some math on a Total object and sets some properties on it. I can use let to achieve this, like so:
var rows =
from t in totals
let unused = Utilities.Sum(t)
select t;
The thing that is weird here, is that Utilities.Sum() has to return a value, even if I don't use it. Is there a way to use it inside a LINQ statement if it returns void? I obviously can't do something like this:
var rows =
from t in totals
Utilities.Sum(t)
select t;
PS - I know this is probably not good practice to call a method with side effects in a LINQ expression. Just trying to understand LINQ syntax completely.
No, there is no LINQ method that performs an Action on all of the items in the IEnumerable<T>. It was very specifically left out because the designers actively didn't want it to be in there.
Answering the question
No, but you could cheat by creating a Func which just calls the intended method and spits out a random return value, bool for example:
Func<Total, bool> dummy = (total) =>
{
Utilities.Sum(total);
return true;
};
var rows = from t in totals
let unused = dummy(t)
select t;
But this is not a good idea - it's not particularly readable.
The let statement behind the scenes
What the above query will translate to is something similar to this:
var rows = totals.Select(t => new { t, unused = dummy(t) })
.Select(x => x.t);
So another option if you want to use method-syntax instead of query-syntax, what you could do is:
var rows = totals.Select(t =>
{
Utilities.Sum(t);
return t;
});
A little better, but still abusing LINQ.
... but what you should do
But I really see no reason not to just simply loop around totals separately:
foreach (var t in totals)
Utilities.Sum(t);
You should download the "Interactive Extensions" (NuGet Ix-Main) from Microsoft's Reactive Extensions team. It has a load of useful extensions. It'll let you do this:
var rows =
from t in totals.Do(x => Utilities.Sum(x))
select t;
It's there to allow side-effects on a traversed enumerable.
Please, read my comment to the question. The simplest way to achieve such of functionality is to use query like this:
var rows = from t in totals
group t by t.name into grp
select new
{
Name = t.Key,
Sum = grp.Sum()
};
Above query returns IEnumerable object.
For further information, please see: 101 LINQ Samples

Chaining OR conditions in EF 5.0

I will preface this with I'm actively searching for the solution to this problem but figured I might short cut some research and development time if someone here on stack has already figured this out. (I have found nothing online so here goes)
We have a case in an application framework we are building where we need the capability to take in a set of Predicates (List<Expression<Func<T,bool>>>) and parse it in a search framework.
Right now we have the capability to filter in this way being that:
//Assume predicates is passed as a method argument.
// of List<Expression<Func<T,bool>>>
//Assume user is passed in as a method argument.
//Assume FilterToUserAccess is a custom extension method that restricts the dataset
// to access restrictions.
var query = _dbContext.Set<EntityType>()
.FilterToUserAccess(user);
foreach(var p in predicates){
query = query.Where(p);
}
return p.ToList();
The reason we need to do this is for scale-ability of filterable objects. However for a quick search this is not possible given the built in capabilities of EF. What I need to be able to do is:
Object A (lets pretend it's a race car) and we want to search make, model, team, and driver in a quick search box. So if I enter "Earnhardt", it would search all race car entity properties being make, model, team, and driver. I would end up with all the DEI cars as well as Dale Jr. I would like to use the same approach so we can configure a searchable entity and reflect the search configuration on application start. I would ideally like to make some way of having the query look similar to this:
//Assume predicates is passed as a method argument.
// of List<Expression<Func<T,bool>>>
//Assume user is passed in as a method argument.
//Assume FilterToUserAccess is a custom extension method that restricts the dataset
// to access restrictions.
var query = _dbContext.Set<EntityType>()
.FilterToUserAccess(user);
foreach(var p in predicates){
query = query.Or(p);
}
return p.ToList();
I realize I can do:
_dbContext.Set<EntityType>().Where(predicate1 || predicate2 || predicate3)
However this will not work for the approach we want to take to solve this problem. Ideally an admin for one of our client sites would be able to go in and configure an additional search term with a single click to be included in any and all quick searches for that entity type like we can currently pull off with Filters which use the standard .Where(...) "and" chaining logic.
First solution was a bust, however with some more digging there is an incredibly simple solution, verified and works.
Step 1: install the NuGet package for LinqKit.
Step 2: Enjoy the code below
using (ISampleRepository repo = new SampleRepository())
{
var predicates = new List<Expression<Func<Customer,bool>>>(){
(x => x.FirstName.Contains(searchValue)),
(x => x.LastName.Contains(searchValue))
};
var lambda = PredicateBuilder.False<Customer>();
lambda = predicates.Aggregate(lambda, (current, p) => current.Or(p).Expand());
var query = repo.QueryCustomers().AsExpandable().Include(x => x.Phones).Where(lambda);
return query.Take(500)
.ToList()
.Select(x => x.ToDTO())
.ToList();
}
This is just the spike sample but doing the same thing with a method taking in ->
List<T> QuickSearch<T>(string input) ...
Will be able to use the same approach. You have a collection of predicates still in Expression form passed in, then you use the predicate builder tricks to pull the query off. Then using the AsExpandable() allows you to execute the combined predicate created using the predicate builder.
Hopefully this is helpful to more than just me, but this is the solution I'm going with as it's quite a bit less code. Allows you to build your predicates elsewhere... and still combine them in an "OR" statement after the fact.
As Ladislav says, you will need to dynamically generate your LINQ expressions. Here is a simple example of a program that dynamically builds a predicate for a collection of integers:
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
// Retreive your data source
List<int> numbers = new List<int>() { 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 };
// Create a collection of predicates that you would like to chain together.
ParameterExpression parameterExpression = Expression.Parameter(typeof(int), "x");
List<Expression> predicates = new List<Expression>();
// x >= 50
predicates.Add(Expression.GreaterThanOrEqual(parameterExpression, Expression.Constant(50)));
// x <= 20
predicates.Add(Expression.LessThanOrEqual(parameterExpression, Expression.Constant(20)));
// Build a single predicate by chaining individual predicates together in an OR fashion
Expression whereFilter = Expression.Constant(false); // Use false a base expression in OR statements
foreach (var predicate in predicates) {
whereFilter = Expression.OrElse(whereFilter, predicate);
}
// Once the expressions have been chained, create a lambda to represent the whole predicate
// x => (x >= 50) || (x <= 20)
Expression<Func<int, bool>> whereLambda =
(Expression<Func<int, bool>>)Expression.Lambda(whereFilter,
new List<ParameterExpression>() { parameterExpression });
// To use an expression directly, the datasource must be an IQueryable
// Since I am using List<T> I must call AsQueryable. This is not necessary
// if your collection is already IQueryable, like in Entity Framework.
var results = numbers.AsQueryable().Where(whereLambda);
}
}
Essentially all I do here is create several boolean statments (x >= 50) and (x <= 20) and place them in a collection. Then by looping through that collection, I take each statement and OR it to the last one. The result is a series of boolean statements all linked together by OR. I then wrap that statement in a Lambda expression so that it can be consumed by IQueryable.Where and pass it to my queryable collection. The results are a filtered set of integers from my full set.
LINQ Expressions can be confusing to say the least, but they are incredibly powerful and worthwhile to know. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help make more sense of this example.

Chain together multiple complex WHERE clauses in LINQ to SQL

This is the pseudo-SQL I want to generate:
SELECT * FROM Table WHERE Column1 = #Value1 OR Column2 = #Value2
The problem is, sometimes the second one should not be included. I was hoping to chain together .Where() clauses like so:
var query = context.TableName;
query = query.Where(t => t.Column1 == value1);
if (NeedsToBeIncluded(value2))
query = query.Where(t => t.Column2 == value2);
Unfortunately, this doesn't work. .Where() will emit an AND if you chain them together by default. Is there a way to get it to emit an OR?
I'm looking for something along the lines of:
var query = context.TableName;
query = query.Where(t => t.Column1 == value1);
if (NeedsToBeIncluded(value2))
query = query.OrWhere(t => t.Column2 == value2);
UPDATE
Ok, so my example listed above is too simple. It was merely supposed to be an example that outlines the problem space. Out "in the wild" so to speak, Column1 and Column2 could actually be "CarType" and "OwnerName", maybe there's more, maybe there's less. I just used a simple example to outline the problem because I'm looking to solve a range of domain problems with this chaining-.Where()s together.
One way is to use LINQKit's PredicateBuilder.
Another way is to use a list:
var values = new List<string> { value1 };
if (NeedsToBeIncluded(value2)) values.Add(value2);
query = context.TableName.Where(t => values.Contains(t));
PB is more flexible, but the list will solve the problem in your question. Note that you need EF 4 for Contains.
I gave an example how to dynamically build a condition yesterday - see here. For your case it would be something like that.
var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(TableName), "t");
Expression condition = Expression.Equal(
Expression.Property(parameter, "Column1"),
Expression.Constant(value1)));
if (NeedsToBeIncluded(value2))
{
condition = Expression.OrElse(
condition,
Expression.Equal(
Expression.Property(parameter, "Column2"),
Expression.Constant(value2)));
}
var expression = Expression.Lambda<Func<TableName, Boolean>>(condition, parameter);
var query = context.TableName.Where(expression);

Dynamic WHERE clause in LINQ

What is the best way to assemble a dynamic WHERE clause to a LINQ statement?
I have several dozen checkboxes on a form and am passing them back as: Dictionary<string, List<string>> (Dictionary<fieldName,List<values>>) to my LINQ query.
public IOrderedQueryable<ProductDetail> GetProductList(string productGroupName, string productTypeName, Dictionary<string,List<string>> filterDictionary)
{
var q = from c in db.ProductDetail
where c.ProductGroupName == productGroupName && c.ProductTypeName == productTypeName
// insert dynamic filter here
orderby c.ProductTypeName
select c;
return q;
}
(source: scottgu.com)
You need something like this? Use the Linq Dynamic Query Library (download includes examples).
Check out ScottGu's blog for more examples.
I have similar scenario where I need to add filters based on the user input and I chain the where clause.
Here is the sample code.
var votes = db.Votes.Where(r => r.SurveyID == surveyId);
if (fromDate != null)
{
votes = votes.Where(r => r.VoteDate.Value >= fromDate);
}
if (toDate != null)
{
votes = votes.Where(r => r.VoteDate.Value <= toDate);
}
votes = votes.Take(LimitRows).OrderByDescending(r => r.VoteDate);
You can also use the PredicateBuilder from LinqKit to chain multiple typesafe lambda expressions using Or or And.
http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/predicatebuilder.aspx
A simple Approach can be if your Columns are of Simple Type like String
public static IEnumerable<MyObject> WhereQuery(IEnumerable<MyObject> source, string columnName, string propertyValue)
{
return source.Where(m => { return m.GetType().GetProperty(columnName).GetValue(m, null).ToString().StartsWith(propertyValue); });
}
It seems much simpler and simpler to use the ternary operator to decide dynamically if a condition is included
List productList = new List();
productList =
db.ProductDetail.Where(p => p.ProductDetailID > 0 //Example prop
&& (String.IsNullOrEmpty(iproductGroupName) ? (true):(p.iproductGroupName.Equals(iproductGroupName)) ) //use ternary operator to make the condition dynamic
&& (ID == 0 ? (true) : (p.ID == IDParam))
).ToList();
I came up with a solution that even I can understand... by using the 'Contains' method you can chain as many WHERE's as you like. If the WHERE is an empty string, it's ignored (or evaluated as a select all). Here is my example of joining 2 tables in LINQ, applying multiple where clauses and populating a model class to be returned to the view. (this is a select all).
public ActionResult Index()
{
string AssetGroupCode = "";
string StatusCode = "";
string SearchString = "";
var mdl = from a in _db.Assets
join t in _db.Tags on a.ASSETID equals t.ASSETID
where a.ASSETGROUPCODE.Contains(AssetGroupCode)
&& a.STATUSCODE.Contains(StatusCode)
&& (
a.PO.Contains(SearchString)
|| a.MODEL.Contains(SearchString)
|| a.USERNAME.Contains(SearchString)
|| a.LOCATION.Contains(SearchString)
|| t.TAGNUMBER.Contains(SearchString)
|| t.SERIALNUMBER.Contains(SearchString)
)
select new AssetListView
{
AssetId = a.ASSETID,
TagId = t.TAGID,
PO = a.PO,
Model = a.MODEL,
UserName = a.USERNAME,
Location = a.LOCATION,
Tag = t.TAGNUMBER,
SerialNum = t.SERIALNUMBER
};
return View(mdl);
}
Just to share my idea for this case.
Another approach by solution is:
public IOrderedQueryable GetProductList(string productGroupName, string productTypeName, Dictionary> filterDictionary)
{
return db.ProductDetail
.where
(
p =>
(
(String.IsNullOrEmpty(productGroupName) || c.ProductGroupName.Contains(productGroupName))
&& (String.IsNullOrEmpty(productTypeName) || c.ProductTypeName.Contains(productTypeName))
// Apply similar logic to filterDictionary parameter here !!!
)
);
}
This approach is very flexible and allow with any parameter to be nullable.
You could use the Any() extension method. The following seems to work for me.
XStreamingElement root = new XStreamingElement("Results",
from el in StreamProductItem(file)
where fieldsToSearch.Any(s => el.Element(s) != null && el.Element(s).Value.Contains(searchTerm))
select fieldsToReturn.Select(r => (r == "product") ? el : el.Element(r))
);
Console.WriteLine(root.ToString());
Where 'fieldsToSearch' and 'fieldsToReturn' are both List objects.
This is the solution I came up with if anyone is interested.
https://kellyschronicles.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/dynamic-predicate-for-a-linq-query/
First we identify the single element type we need to use ( Of TRow As DataRow) and then identify the “source” we are using and tie the identifier to that source ((source As TypedTableBase(Of TRow)). Then we must specify the predicate, or the WHERE clause that is going to be passed (predicate As Func(Of TRow, Boolean)) which will either be returned as true or false. Then we identify how we want the returned information ordered (OrderByField As String). Our function will then return a EnumerableRowCollection(Of TRow), our collection of datarows that have met the conditions of our predicate(EnumerableRowCollection(Of TRow)). This is a basic example. Of course you must make sure your order field doesn’t contain nulls, or have handled that situation properly and make sure your column names (if you are using a strongly typed datasource never mind this, it will rename the columns for you) are standard.
System.Linq.Dynamic might help you build LINQ expressions at runtime.
The dynamic query library relies on a simple expression language for formulating expressions and queries in strings.
It provides you with string-based extension methods that you can pass any string expression into instead of using language operators or type-safe lambda extension methods.
It is simple and easy to use and is particularly useful in scenarios where queries are entirely dynamic, and you want to provide an end-user UI to help build them.
Source: Overview in Dynamic LINQ
The library lets you create LINQ expressions from plain strings, therefore, giving you the possibility to dynamically build a LINQ expression concatenating strings as you require.
Here's an example of what can be achieved:
var resultDynamic = context.Customers
.Where("City == #0 and Age > #1", "Paris", 50)
.ToList();

How can I Pass in a lambda that will be used as a filter for a row in a datatable?

I've got some code which accepts a DataTable as a parameter and calculates the total of several of the columns in the DataTable. I thought it might be nice to be able to pass in a lambda expression which would perform a filter on the column I'm totaling.
Here's a portion of the code:
public TrafficTotals CalculateTotals(DataTable table)
{
TrafficTotals total = new TrafficTotals();
total.TotalTraffic = table.AsEnumerable().Sum(p => p.Field<int>("Converted"));
// More stuff
I can manually add a filter into the expression directly in the code:
var filteredTotal = table.AsEnumerable().Where(p => p.Field<string>("MyColumn") == "Hello").Sum(p => p.Field<int>("Converted"));
But instead I'd like to pass the "Where" portion as lambda expression instead, but I keep getting lost in the syntax to get the parameters correct.
I have several ways of working around this that don't really involve lambdas but it seems like a nice way of handling this.
Any ideas?
I'm slightly confused because you're already specifying the Where clause with a lambda expression, but I suspect you want this:
public TrafficTotals CalculateTotals(DataTable table,
Func<DataRow, bool> filter)
{
TrafficTotals total = new TrafficTotals();
total.TotalTraffic = table.AsEnumerable()
.Where(filter)
.Sum(p => p.Field<int>("Converted"));
// More stuff
}
You'd then call it with:
totals = CalculateTotals(table,
row => row.Field<string>("MyColumn") == "Hello");
Is that what you're after?
If you want to store the lambda expression, you need to declare it like so.
This would return true if an integer is less than 3 for example:
Func<int,bool> F = o=>o < 3
Then you can pass it around.

Categories

Resources