Develop Reference

Best way to find values not in two lists c#

I have two lists which I need to compare (carOptions and custOptions).
Both of these lists are in my Customer class like below:
public class CustomerDTO
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
//other props removed for brevity
public List<OptionDTO> SelectedCarOptions { get; set; }
public List<OptionDTO> SelectedCustomerOptions { get; set; }
}
var existingData = _myRepository.GetDataByCustomer(customerId, year);
var existingCarOptions = existingData.Select(f => f.SelectedCarOptions);
var existingCustomerOptions = existingData.Select(f => f.SelectedCustomerOptions);
existingData is an IEnumerable of CustomerDTO and then existingCarOptions and existingCustomerOptions is an IEnumerable<List<OptionDTO>>
In the method, I have a list of IEnumerable<OptionDTO> options that gets passed in. I then break this down into car or customer based on the Enum as below:
var newCarOptions = options.Where(o => o.OptionTypeID == OptionType.CarOptions);
var newCustomerOptions = options.Where(o => o.OptionTypeID == OptionType.CustomerOptions).ToList();
What I need to do is find which options are in one collection but no in the other.
I tried as below but getting an Error on the Except (I maybe need to create my own static method in that class) but I am not sure this is the best approach really?
if (existingCarOptions.Count() != newCarOptions.Count())
{
//var test = newCarOptions.Except(existingCarOptions);
}
if (existingCustomerOptions.Count() != newCustomerOptions.Count())
{
//var test2 = newCustomerOptions.Except(existingCustomerOptions);
}
Is it also quite a bit of code in the method - I could split it out into sperate methods if required but perhaps there is a simpler way I could achieve this?

I'm assuming OptionDTO has a property called Id, which uniquely identifies an option (you have to change the code accordingly if this is not the case), you may use HashSets to quickly find unmatched OptionsDTOs, while keeping the overall time cost O(n) (where n is the max number of combined options).
Create the existing options sets:
var existingCarOptions = existingData.SelectMany(d => d.SelectedCarOptions).Select(o => o.Id);
var existingCustomerOptions = existingData.SelectMany(d => d.SelectedCustomerOptions).Select(o => o.Id);
var existingCarOptionsIds = new HashSet<int>(existingCarOptions);
var existingCustomerOptionsIds = new HashSet<int>(existingCustomerOptions );
Then you extract options missing in existing sets with:
var unmatchedCarOptions = newCarOptions.Where(o => !existingCarOptionsIds.Contains(o.Id));
var unmatchedCustomerOptions = newCustomerOptions.Where(o => !existingCustomerOptionsIds.Contains(o.Id));

If you want to compare two classes you can use IEqualityComparer
public class OptionComparer : IEqualityComparer<OptionDTO>
{
public bool Equals(OptionDTO x, OptionDTO y)
{
if (object.ReferenceEquals(x, y))
{
return true;
}
if (object.ReferenceEquals(x, null) ||
object.ReferenceEquals(y, null))
{
return false;
}
return x.OptionTypeID == y.OptionTypeID ;
}
public int GetHashCode(OptionDTO obj)
{
if (obj == null)
{
return 0;
}
return obj.OptionTypeID.GetHashCode();
}
With using this you can ıdentify that What is the concept of equality for these classes.
Now we can find different values..
public List<OptionDTO>CalculateDiffBetweenLists(List<OptionDTO> left, List<OptionDTO> right){
List<OptionDTO> optionDiff;
optionDiff = left.Except(right, new OptionComparer ()).ToList();
return optionDiff ;
}

Sum up all the properties of a collection and dynamically assigned it to another object

I have a collection of object in lst of type DataResponse and what I would like to do is sum up all the properties that are int and decimal of this collection and assign the result of each property to another object DataContainerResponse that has the same exact property names(and types) as the those that are being summed up.
I can do this manually by typing out each property by hand and do a .Sum(s=>s.<propertyname>. But that so 90s. Below is my fruitless attempt to juice it out. Frankly, I never assigned a var to a lambda expression before and I don't even know if it's possible .Sum(s=><var name>);
public DataAggragationResponse doAggregation(List<DataResponse> lst)
{
if (lst.Count == 0)
return null;
DataContainerResponse rd = new DataContainerResponse();
//If I do it manually typing each prop by hand.
rd.VIOL = lst.Sum(s => s.VIOL);
//Automation!!!
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in typeof(DataResponse).GetProperties())
{
rd.GetType().GetProperties().SetValue(lst.Sum(s => propertyInfo.Name[0]));
}
}

If you want to go with full reflection, you can try something like the following. I didnt optimize the code, did it as fast as I can. So sorry for the messy look and Im assuming the property names are same in the aggregated result class and the unit class that you are aggregating against.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var list = new List<DataResponse>();
list.Add(new DataResponse() { Stuff = 1, Stuff2 = 2 });
list.Add(new DataResponse() { Stuff = 1, Stuff2 = 2 });
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
var response = DoAggregationReflection(list);
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds);
watch.Reset();
watch.Start();
var response2 = DoAggregation(list);
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds);
}
public static DataAggragationResponse DoAggregationReflection(List<DataResponse> lst)
{
if (lst.Count == 0)
return null;
DataAggragationResponse aggrResponse = new DataAggragationResponse();
var responseType = typeof(DataResponse);
var aggrResponseType = typeof(DataAggragationResponse);
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in typeof(DataResponse).GetProperties())
{
aggrResponseType.GetProperty(propertyInfo.Name).SetValue(aggrResponse, lst.Sum(x => (int)responseType.GetProperty(propertyInfo.Name).GetValue(x)));
}
return aggrResponse;
}
public static DataAggragationResponse DoAggregation(List<DataResponse> lst)
{
if (lst.Count == 0)
return null;
DataAggragationResponse aggrResponse = new DataAggragationResponse();
aggrResponse.Stuff = lst.Sum(x => x.Stuff);
aggrResponse.Stuff2 = lst.Sum(x => x.Stuff2);
return aggrResponse;
}
}
public class DataResponse
{
public int Stuff { get; set; }
public int Stuff2 { get; set; }
}
public class DataAggragationResponse
{
public int Stuff { get; set; }
public int Stuff2 { get; set; }
}
But, as a suggestion, if you want to go with this approach, its better if you can cache all the reflection invokes you're making as they are costly. And the 90's approach would still win in benchmark. Like the example above would benchmark like the following with the simple StopWatch.
1.8193
0.4476
Press any key to continue . . .
The first one is the execution time of DoAggregationReflection and the last one is the execution time of DoAggregation. You can optimize the reflection one as much as you want but I think it would still fail to compete with the basic one.
Sometime's the 90's are way better. ;) Although you'd still use LINQ to do the actual summation so that's not that 90's anymore as LINQ was born in 2007 according to wikipedia.

Hopefully this can help you. I wish I had kept the SO link to the question I pulled this from a while ago. Sorry to the original poster for not mentioning his/her name.
using System.Reflection;
public static Dictionary<string, string> GetPropertiesValue(object o)
{
Dictionary<string, string> PropertiesDictionaryToReturn = new Dictionary<string, string>();
foreach (MemberInfo itemMemberInfo in o.GetType().GetMembers())
{
if (itemMemberInfo.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property)
{
//object PropValue = GetPropertyValue(OPSOP, item.Name);
//string itemProperty = itemMemberInfo.Name;
//string itemPropertyValue = o.GetType().GetProperty(itemMemberInfo.Name).GetValue(o, null).ToString();
//Console.WriteLine(itemProperty + " : " + itemPropertyValue);
PropertiesDictionaryToReturn.Add(itemMemberInfo.Name, o.GetType().GetProperty(itemMemberInfo.Name).GetValue(o, null).ToString());
}
}
return PropertiesDictionaryToReturn;
}
It's not exactly what you need but, I think you could adapt it.

I would rather take a different approach. I would dynamically build and compile (once) something like this:
Func<DataContainerResponse, DataResponse, DataContainerResponse> aggregateFunc =
(result, item) =>
{
result.Prop1 += item.Prop1;
result.Prop2 += item.Prop2;
...
result.PropN += item.PropN;
return result;
}
(if you wonder why the signature is like the above, the answer is - because it can be used directly for the following Aggregate overload).
Here is how it can be done:
static readonly Func<DataContainerResponse, DataResponse, DataContainerResponse>
AggregateFunc = BuildAggregateFunc();
static Func<DataContainerResponse, DataResponse, DataContainerResponse> BuildAggregateFunc()
{
var result = Expression.Parameter(typeof(DataContainerResponse), "result");
var item = Expression.Parameter(typeof(DataResponse), "item");
var propertyTypes = new HashSet<Type> { typeof(decimal), typeof(int) };
var statements = item.Type.GetProperties()
.Where(p => propertyTypes.Contains(p.PropertyType))
.Select(p => Expression.AddAssign(
Expression.Property(result, p.Name),
Expression.Property(item, p)));
var body = Expression.Block(statements
.Concat(new Expression[] { result }));
var lambda = Expression.Lambda<Func<DataContainerResponse, DataResponse, DataContainerResponse>>(
body, result, item);
return lambda.Compile();
}
and the usage is simple:
public DataContainerResponse DoAggregation(List<DataResponse> source)
{
return source.Aggregate(new DataContainerResponse(), AggregateFunc);
}

Combine the results of two columns in a select into one array with LINQ?

Basically I'm looking to select both string columns and put it all into a single array of strings. Right now I'm having to do two selects and combine the results. It isn't a huge deal, I just think it looks awkward. Any suggestions on how to accomplish the same goal with one linq statement? Here is a test case I'm using to mess around:
[TestFixture]
public class test {
public class Values {
public string Present { get; set; }
public string Previous { get; set; }
public bool Flag { get; set; }
}
[Test]
public void test1() {
var list = new List<Values> {
new Values { Present = "present1", Previous = "previous1", Flag = false },
new Values { Present = "present2", Previous = "previous2", Flag = false },
new Values { Present = "present3", Previous = "previous3", Flag = true },
new Values { Present = "present4", Previous = "previous4", Flag = true }
};
var r1 = list.Where(c => c.Flag).Select(c => c.Present);
var r2 = list.Where(c => c.Flag).Select(c => c.Previous);
var combined = r1.Concat(r2);
Assert.AreEqual(4, combined.Count());
}
}

An alternative solution with using SelectMany (it keeps the duplicates):
var combined = list.Where(c => c.Flag)
.SelectMany(c => new[] { c.Present, c.Previous });
Assert.AreEqual(4, combined.Count());

Does the final ordering of the strings in the list matter? If not, it seems like this would be the clearest way to accomplish this:
var strings = new List<String>();
foreach (var value in list.Where(c => c.Flag))
{
strings.Add(value.Present);
strings.Add(value.Previous);
}

Variable initalisation in while loop

I have a function that reads a file in chunks.
public static DataObject ReadNextFile(){ ...}
And dataobject looks like this:
public DataObject
{
public string Category { get; set; }
// And other members ...
}
What I want to do is the following basically
List<DataObject> dataObjects = new List<DataObject>();
while(ReadNextFile().Category == "category")
{
dataObjects.Add(^^^^^ the thingy in the while);
}
I know it's probably not how it's done, because how do I access the object I've just read.

I think what you're looking for is:
List<DataObject> dataObjects = new List<DataObject>();
DataObject nextObject;
while((nextObject = ReadNextFile()).Category == "category")
{
dataObjects.Add(nextObject);
}
But I wouldn't do that. I'd write:
List<DataObject> dataObject = source.ReadItems()
.TakeWhile(x => x.Category == "Category")
.ToList();
where ReadItems() was a method returning an IEnumerable<DataObject>, reading and yielding one item at a time. You may well want to implement it with an iterator block (yield return etc).
This is assuming you really want to stop reading as soon as you find the first object which has a different category. If you actually want to include all the matching DataObjects,
change TakeWhile to Where in the above LINQ query.
(EDIT: Saeed has since deleted his objections to the answer, but I guess I might as well leave the example up...)
EDIT: Proof that this will work, as Saeed doesn't seem to believe me:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class DataObject
{
public string Category { get; set; }
public int Id { get; set; }
}
class Test
{
static int count = 0;
static DataObject ReadNextFile()
{
count++;
return new DataObject
{
Category = count <= 5 ? "yes" : "no",
Id = count
};
}
static void Main()
{
List<DataObject> dataObjects = new List<DataObject>();
DataObject nextObject;
while((nextObject = ReadNextFile()).Category == "yes")
{
dataObjects.Add(nextObject);
}
foreach (DataObject x in dataObjects)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", x.Id, x.Category);
}
}
}
Output:
1: yes
2: yes
3: yes
4: yes
5: yes
In other words, the list has retained references to the 5 distinct objects which have been returned from ReadNextFile.

This is subjective, but I hate this pattern (and I fully recognize that I am in the very small minority here). Here is how I do it when I need something like this.
var dataObjects = new List<DataObject>();
while(true) {
DataObject obj = ReadNextFile();
if(obj.Category != "category") {
break;
}
dataObjects.Add(obj);
}
But these days, it is better to say
List<DataObject> dataObjects = GetItemsFromFile(path)
.TakeWhile(x => x.Category == "category")
.ToList();
Here, of course, GetItemsFromFile reads the items from the file pointed to by path and returns an IEnumerable<DataObject>.

List<DataObject> dataObjects = new List<DataObject>();
string category = "";
while((category=ReadNextFile().Category) == "category")
{
dataObjects.Add(new DataObject{Category = category});
}
And if you have more complicated object you can do this (like jon):
List<DataObject> dataObjects = new List<DataObject>();
var category = new DataObject();
while((category=ReadNextFile()).Category == "category")
{
dataObjects.Add(category);
}

You should look into implementing IEnumerator on the class container the call to ReadNextFile(). Then you would always have reference to the current object with IEnumerator.Current, and MoveNext() will return the bool you are looking for to check for advancement. Something like this:
public class ObjectReader : IEnumerator<DataObject>
{
public bool MoveNext()
{
// try to read next file, return false if you can't
// if you can, set the Current to the returned DataObject
}
public DataObject Current
{
get;
private set;
}
}

If chained - how to delete?

I'm doing an application where I have the following scenario:
I have several rules (business classes)
where they all return the client code. They are separate classes that will look for the code trial and error, if find the client code returns it and so on.
How can I use a rule without using a bunch of IFs or threaded IFs in the class that calls the others that contains the specific business rules?
For the specific classes, I used the design pattern strategy.
EX: Main Class
public abstract class Geral
{
public abstract string retornaCodigo(Arquivo cliente)
{
var codigo = ""; // logica
return codigo;
}
}
public class derivada1 : Geral
{
public override string retornaCodigo(Arquivo cliente)
{
var codigo = ""; // logica
return codigo;
}
}
public class derivada2 : Geral
{
public override string retornaCodigo(Arquivo cliente)
{
var codigo = ""; // logica 2
return codigo;
}
}
public class derivada3 : Geral
{
public override string retornaCodigo(Arquivo cliente)
{
var codigo = ""; // logica 3
return codigo ;
}
}
public class Negocio
{
public string Codigo()
{
var arquivo = new Arquivo();
var derivada1 = new derivada1().retornaCodigo(arquivo);
var derivada2 = new derivada2().retornaCodigo(arquivo);
var derivada3 = new derivada3().retornaCodigo(arquivo);
if (derivada1.Equals(null))
return derivada1;
if (derivada2.Equals(null))
return derivada2;
if (derivada3.Equals(null))
return derivada3;
return "";
}
}
what I wanted and that I did not have to use Ifs in the Business class for validation whether or not I found the code where it can fall under any condition gave example of 3 classes plus I have more than 15 conditions and can increase, case would be many Ifs.

Let's organize all derivada into a collection, say, array and then query the collection with a help of Linq
public string Codigo() {
var arquivo = new Arquivo();
Geral[] derivadas = new [] {
new derivada1(),
new derivada2(),
new derivada3();
};
//TODO: check the the condition: I guessed that you want to return first meanful codigo
foreach (var codigo in derivadas.Select(geral => geral.retornaCodigo(arquivo)))
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(codigo))
return codigo;
return "";
}
If you have a lot of derivada you can try using Reflection in order to create a collection:
using System.Reflection;
...
private static Geral[] s_Derivadas = AppDomain
.CurrentDomain
.GetAssemblies() // scan assemblies
.SelectMany(asm => asm.GetTypes()) // types within them
.Where(t => !t.IsAbstract) // type is not abstract
.Where(t => typeof(Geral).IsAssignableFrom(t)) // type derived from Geral
.Where(t => t.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes) != null) // has default constructor
.Select(t => Activator.CreateInstance(t) as Geral) // create type's instance
.ToArray(); // materialized as array
then
public string Codigo() {
var arquivo = new Arquivo();
foreach (var codigo in s_Derivadas.Select(geral => geral.retornaCodigo(arquivo)))
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(codigo))
return codigo;
return "";
}

You could create a list of derivada's and then iterate over it
and if any given derivada1 equals None, you simply return it, otherwise you just continue the 'for loop'
I could write up a snippet if this doesn't make sense to you. lmk!

This would be simple with Linq:
public class Negocio
{
public string Codigo()
{
var arquivo = new Arquivo();
var derivadaList = new List<Geral>() {
new derivada1(),
new derivada2(),
new derivada3(),
};
return derivadaList.FirstOrDefault(d => d.retornaCodigo(arquivo) == null)?.retornaCodigo(arquivo) ?? "";
}
}
You can add as many Geral derived classes to the derivadaList as you want and the code will continue to function as designed.
What is happening here is that FirstOrDefault will run the Lamda expression on every element returning the first one that equals null (although I'm not sure this is what you want, it matches your example code). Since it returns a Geral object, you need to call retornaCodigo on it only if it is not null. If it is null, just return an empty string.
Another way to write this would be:
public class Negocio
{
public string Codigo()
{
var arquivo = new Arquivo();
var derivadaList = new List<Geral>() {
new derivada1(),
new derivada2(),
new derivada3(),
};
foreach (var derivada in derivadaList)
{
var result = derivada.retornaCodigo(arquivo);
if (result == null)
return result;
}
return "";
}
}

You can also use a list of derived classes and call them in Loop
public string Codigo()
{
var arquivo = new Arquivo();
List<Geral> gerals=new List<Geral>();
gerals.Add(new derivada1());
gerals.Add(new derivada2());
........
...........
foreach(Geral g in gerals)
{
var val=g.retornaCodigo(arquivo);
if(val!=null)
return val;
}
return "";
}
This is a sample implementation, However you are not using strategy correctly
A better approach will be constructor injection,
public string Codigo(Geral implementar)
{
var val=geral.retornaCodigo(arquivo);
return "";
}
Then instantiate only with the chosen strategy.
Otherwise if you want to chain multiple validations, then use CHain of responsibility pattern.