I have this function and I want to get distinct value in # Data #. but my problem is if there are two value with the same characters but one is Upper and one is Lower (i.e Comedy and comedy) it still have both value Comedy and comedy in my Data. So when I bind to Data...it shows both.
My function is:
public void LoadBookGenre(Book abc)
{
var loadbook = from Book s in BookDB.Books where s.Genre == abc.Genre select s;
BookAttribute.Clear();
foreach (Book m in loadbook) BookAttribute.Add(m);
List<Book> distinct = BookAttribute.GroupBy(a => a.Genre).Select(g => g.First()).ToList();
Data.Clear();
foreach (Book s in distinct) Data.Add(s);
}
You can use the GroupBy overload that allows you to specify a case-insensitive comparer:
List<Book> distinct =
BookAttribute.GroupBy(a => a.Genre, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
.Select(g => g.First())
.ToList();
Depending on your scenario, you might also be able to use Distinct:
List<string> distinctGenres =
BookAttribute.Select(a => a.Genre)
.Distinct(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
.ToList();
Edit: You also need to alter the equality check in your initial query:
var loadbook = from Book s in BookDB.Books
where s.Genre.Equals(abc.Genre, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
select s;
The common solution is to maintain a version of the string that is forced to upper or lower case with upper() or lower(), and use that internal string for comparisons and the original string as the "display" version.
Replace
Data.Add(s);
by
var found = Data.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Genre.ToUpperInvariant() == s.Genre.ToUpperInvariant());
if (found == null)
{
Data.Add(s);
}
This way, you avoid adding the same name twice, while keeping the casing of the first one you find.
Related
I'm using DataTables.Mvc library for use with jQuery DataTables.
One of the methods is GetSortedColumns() which returns an array containing configurations for each column to be sorted.
Of interest in this object are the Name and SortDirection properties. Name is also the database table field name. SortDirection is either asc or desc.
At first ThenBy and ThenByDescending were undefined symbols, so I created ordered as IOrderedQueryable. This resolves the symbols, but I don't see any effect of these. Neither OrderBy, OrderByDescending, ThenBy nor ThenByDescending have any effect on the order of records in filteredRecords.
In Controller:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public JsonResult GetUserSelections([ModelBinder(typeof(DataTablesBinder))] IDataTablesRequest requestModel)
{
// Column Sort
var filteredRecords = db.AspNetSelectorInputs.Select(si => si);
var sortedColumns = requestModel.Columns.GetSortedColumns();
var count = 0;
foreach (var column in sortedColumns)
{
var ordered = filteredRecords as IOrderedQueryable<AspNetSelectorInput>;
filteredRecords =
column.SortDirection == DataTables.Mvc.Column.OrderDirection.Ascendant
? count == 0
? ordered.OrderBy(c => column.Name)
: ordered.ThenBy(c => column.Name)
: count == 0
? ordered.OrderByDescending(c => column.Name)
: ordered.ThenByDescending(c => column.Name);
count++;
}
filteredRecords = filteredRecords.Select(si => si).Skip(requestModel.Start).Take(requestModel.Length);
....
Can anyone see why this doesn't affect ordering of filteredRecords?
Is there a better way?
It is sorting, on exactly what you've asked it to. But the lambda expressions aren't doing what you think. For example, you're doing .OrderBy(c => column.Name), which is sorting using a literal value of the name of the column which has the same value for every item in the collection (notice how the thing it is sorting on is not affected by c), so it appears not to sort your collection. For example, you might as well be doing .OrderBy(c => "Hello").
You would need to do something like .OrderBy(c => c.YourChoiceOfPropertyName). Except you can't do that because (presumably) the name of the property is a string value in column.Name. So you'll need to use reflection within the lambda to get the value of that property using c as the instance. This will need fixing on all the lambdas. For example, inside the loop:
var propertyInfo=typeof(AspNetSelectorInput)
.GetProperty(column.Name);
And replacement lambda expressions:
c=>propertyInfo.GetValue(c)
P.S. the two instances of .Select(si => si) seem to be redundant, unless I am missing something.
I want to sort a C# list by word. Assume I have a C# list (of objects) which contains following words:
[{id:1, name: "ABC"},
{id:2, name: "XXX"},
{id:3, name: "Mille"},
{id:4, name: "YYY"},
{id:5, name: "Mill",
{id:6, name: "Millen"},
{id:7, name: "OOO"},
{id:8, name: "GGGG"},
{id:9, name: null},
{id:10, name: "XXX"},
{id:11, name: "mil"}]
If user pass Mil as a search key, I want to return all the words starting with the search key & then all the words which does not match criteria & have them sort alphabetically.
Easiest way I can think of is to run a for loop over the result set, put all the words starting with search key into one list and put the renaming words into another list. Sort the second list and them combine both the list to return the result.
I wonder if there is a smarter or inbuilt way to get the desired result.
Sure! You will sort by the presence of a match, then by the name, like this:
var results = objects.OrderByDescending(o => o.Name.StartsWith(searchKey))
.ThenBy(o => o.Name);
Note that false comes before true in a sort, so you'll need to use OrderByDescending.
As AlexD points out, the name can be null. You'll have to decide how you want to treat this. The easiest way would be to use o.Name?.StartsWith(searchKey) ?? false, but you'll have to decide based on your needs. Also, not all Linq scenarios support null propagation (Linq To Entities comes to mind).
This should do it, but there's probably a faster way, maybe using GroupBy somehow.
var sorted = collection
.Where(x => x.Name.StartsWith(criteria))
.OrderBy(x => x.Name)
.Concat(collection
.Where(x => !x.Name.StartsWith(criteria))
.OrderBy(x => x.Name))
You can try GroupBy like this:
var sorted = collection
.GroupBy(item => item.Name.StartsWith(criteria))
.OrderByDescending(chunk => chunk.Key)
.SelectMany(chunk => chunk
.OrderBy(item => item.Name));
Separate items into two groups (meets and doesn't meet the criteria)
Order the groups as whole (1st that meets)
Order items within each group
Finally combine the items
There's nothing C#-specific to solve this, but it sounds like you're really looking for algorithm design guidance.
You should sort the list first. If this is a static list you should just keep it sorted all the time. If the list is large, you may consider using a different data structure (Binary Search Tree, Skip List, etc.) which is more optimized for this scenario.
Once it's sorted, finding matching elements becomes a simple binary search. Move the matching elements to the beginning of the result set, then return.
Add an indicator of a match into the select, and then sort on that:
void Main()
{
word[] Words = new word[11]
{new word {id=1, name= "ABC"},
new word {id=2, name= "XXX"},
new word {id=3, name= "Mille"},
new word {id=4, name= "YYY"},
new word {id=5, name= "Mill"},
new word {id=6, name= "Millen"},
new word {id=7, name= "OOO"},
new word {id=8, name= "GGGG"},
new word {id=9, name= null},
new word {id=10, name= "XXX"},
new word {id=11, name= "mil"}};
var target = "mil";
var comparison = StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase;
var q = (from w in Words
where w.name != null
select new {
Match = w.name.StartsWith(target, comparison)?1:2,
name = w.name})
.OrderBy(w=>w.Match).ThenBy(w=>w.name);
q.Dump();
}
public struct word
{
public int id;
public string name;
}
It is probably not easier but you could create a class that implements IComparable Interface and have a property Mil that is used by CompareTo.
Then you could just call List.Sort(). And you can pass an IComparer to List.Sort.
It would probably be the most efficient and you can sort in place rather than producing a new List.
On average, this method is an O(n log n) operation, where n is Count;
in the worst case it is an O(n ^ 2) operation.
public int CompareTo(object obj)
{
if (obj == null) return 1;
Temperature otherTemperature = obj as Temperature;
if (otherTemperature != null)
{
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(Mil)
return this.Name.CompareTo(otherTemperature.Name);
else if(this.Name.StartsWith(Mill) && otherTemperature.Name.StartsWith(Mill)
return this.Name.CompareTo(otherTemperature.Name);
else if(!this.Name.StartsWith(Mill) && !otherTemperature.Name.StartsWith(Mill)
return this.Name.CompareTo(otherTemperature.Name);
else if(this.Name.StartsWith(Mill))
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
else
throw new ArgumentException("Object is not a Temperature");
}
You will need to add how you want null Name to sort
First create a list of the words that match, sorted.
Then add to that list all of the words that weren't added to the first list, also sorted.
public IEnumerable<Word> GetSortedByMatches(string keyword, Word[] words)
{
var result = new List<Word>(words.Where(word => word.Name.StartsWith(keyword))
.OrderBy(word => word.Name));
result.AddRange(words.Except(result).OrderBy(word => word.Name));
return result;
}
Some of the comments suggest that it should be case-insensitive. That would be
public IEnumerable<Word> GetSortedByMatches(string keyword, Word[] words)
{
var result = new List<Word>(
words.Where(word => word.Name.StartsWith(keyword, true)) //<-- ignoreCase
.OrderBy(word => word.Name));
result.AddRange(words.Except(result).OrderBy(word => word.Name));
return result;
}
I am trying to fetch an option using the SingleOrDefault Linq to SQL method.
var po = repository.Context.AsQueryable<Option>().SingleOrDefault(o => o.Option.Id == sp.Options // sp.Options is a collection);
The problem is that inside the SingleOrDefault method I am comparing p.Option.Id == a collection. What I want is to select the option from sp.Options that matches the o.Option.Id. How can I do that?
UPDATE:
One thing I should have mentioned that the sp.Options is a different class than the Option class. sp.Options is SPOptions class so I cannot pass it inside the contains method.
Take a look at Contains.
repository.Context.AsQueryable<Option>().SingleOrDefault(o => sp.Options.Contains(o.Option.Id));
If Options is not a collection of the class of Option.Id, you can use the Any method with your comparison logic in it as follow :
repository.Context.AsQueryable<Option>().SingleOrDefault(o => sp.Options.Any(opts => opts.Something == o.Option.Id));
Search using Contains (sp.Options.Contains(o.Option.Id)) like:
var po = repository.Context.AsQueryable<Option>()
.SingleOrDefault(o => sp.Options.Contains(o.Option.Id));
If members of sp.Options are different from Id then you can do:
var po = repository.Context.AsQueryable<Option>()
.SingleOrDefault(o => sp.Options.Any(r=> r.Id == o.Option.Id));
or
var po = repository.Context.AsQueryable<Option>()
.SingleOrDefault(o => sp.Options.Select(r=> r.Id).Contains(o.Option.Id));
Assuming Id is the field in sp.Options elements that you want to compare with.
Based on your question it seems you're expecting to have a single match between those two option sets, correct ?
If so, I'd suggest you to write it as:
var po = repository.Context.AsQueryable().Where(o => sp.Options.Any(item=>item.id == o.Option.Id)).SingleOrDefault();
I'm trying to filter users by department. The filter may contain multiple departments, the users may belong to multiple departments (n:m). I'm fiddling around with LINQ, but can't find the solution. Following example code uses simplified Tuples just to make it runnable, of course there are some real user objects.
Also on CSSharpPad, so you have some runnable code: http://csharppad.com/gist/34be3e2dd121ffc161c4
string Filter = "Dep1"; //can also contain multiple filters
var users = new List<Tuple<string, string>>
{
Tuple.Create("Meyer", "Dep1"),
Tuple.Create("Jackson", "Dep2"),
Tuple.Create("Green", "Dep1;Dep2"),
Tuple.Create("Brown", "Dep1")
};
//this is the line I can't get to work like I want to
var tuplets = users.Where(u => u.Item2.Intersect(Filter).Any());
if (tuplets.Distinct().ToList().Count > 0)
{
foreach (var item in tuplets) Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("No results");
}
Right now it returns:
(Meyer, Dep1)
(Jackson, Dep2)
(Green, Dep1;Dep2)
(Brown, Dep1)
What I would want it to return is: Meyer,Green,Brown. If Filter would be set to "Dep1;Dep2" I would want to do an or-comparison and find *Meyer,Jackson,Green,Brown" (as well as distinct, as I don't want Green twice). If Filter would be set to "Dep2" I would only want to have Jackson, Green. I also played around with .Split(';'), but it got me nowhere.
Am I making sense? I have Users with single/multiple departments and want filtering for those departments. In my output I want to have all users from the specified department(s). The LINQ-magic is not so strong on me.
Since string implements IEnumerable, what you're doing right now is an Intersect on a IEnumerable<char> (i.e. you're checking each letter in the string). You need to split on ; both on Item2 and Filter and intersect those.
var tuplets = users.Where(u =>
u.Item2.Split(new []{';'})
.Intersect(Filter.Split(new []{';'}))
.Any());
string[] Filter = {"Dep1","Dep2"}; //Easier if this is an enumerable
var users = new List<Tuple<string, string>>
{
Tuple.Create("Meyer", "Dep1"),
Tuple.Create("Jackson", "Dep2"),
Tuple.Create("Green", "Dep1;Dep2"),
Tuple.Create("Brown", "Dep1")
};
//I would use Any/Split/Contains
var tuplets = users.Where(u => Filter.Any(y=> u.Item2.Split(';').Contains(y)));
if (tuplets.Distinct().ToList().Count > 0)
{
foreach (var item in tuplets) Console.WriteLine(item.ToString());
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("No results");
}
In addition to the other answers, the Contains extension method may also be a good fit for what you're trying to do if you're matching on a value:
var result = list.Where(x => filter.Contains(x.Value));
Otherwise, the Any method will accept a delegate:
var result = list.Where(x => filter.Any(y => y.Value == x.Value));
How do I specify more than one condition in the below LINQ?
if (Books.Select(x => x.BookName).Count() !=
Books.Select(x => x.BookName).Distinct().Count())
{
//Todo
}
I want to specify some thing Like this:
if (Books.Select(x => x.BookName && x.price).Count() !=
Books.Select(x => x.BookName && x.price).Distinct().Count())
{
//Todo
}
You don't need a select for getting the first count. You can use an anonymous type for getting the second count. This will get number of distinct book name and prices:
if (Books.Count() != Books.Select(x => new { x.BookName, x.price}).Distinct().Count())
{
//Todo
}
So, to answer your question, project each item out into an anonymous type.
However, to avoid iterating the source data multiple times (which is particularly problematic if Book represents a database query), and to avoid performing the projection repeatedly, you can use GroupBy instead:
bool areDuplicatedBooks = Books.GroupBy(x => new{x.BookName, x.price})
.Where(group => group.Count() > 1)
.Any()