Develop Reference

Multi property checking with single rule

How could I make following concise, with an extension method etc.? Also could that InlineValidator consolidated into the MainPropertyValidator class?
public class PropertyDTOValidator : AbstractValidator<PropertyDTO>
{
public PropertyDTOValidator()
{
RuleFor(p => p).SetValidator(new InlineValidator<PropertyDTO>
{
validator =>
{
return validator.RuleFor(p => p.MainProperty)
.SetValidator(new MainPropertyValidator());
}
}).When(p =>
{
var checkMainProperty = p.MainProperty.Id != -1;
if (!checkMainProperty)
{
// Some actions...
}
return checkMainProperty;
});
}
class MainPropertyValidator : AbstractValidator<PropertyDTO>
{
public MainPropertyValidator()
{
RuleFor(p => p.Id).Must(id =>
{
return id >= 1;
}).WithMessage("MainProperty Id value is not valid...");
}
}
}
Edit
I have following extension but i want to consolidate my validator into a single class like InlineValidator. I checked the code of InlineValidator but i could not consolidate InlineValidator and MainPropertyValidator.
public static class Extensions
{
public static IRuleBuilderOptions<T, TProperty1> SetValidator<T, TProperty1, TProperty2>(this IRuleBuilderInitial<T, TProperty1> ruleBuilder,
Expression<Func<T, TProperty2>> exp, IValidator<TProperty2> validator)
{
return ruleBuilder.SetValidator(new InlineValidator<T>
{
v => v.RuleFor(exp).SetValidator(validator)
} as IValidator<TProperty1>);
}
}
RuleFor(p => p).SetValidator(p => p.MainProperty, new MainPropertyValidator()).When(p =>{});

Alternatively, following extensions could be used;
public static class Extensions
{
public static IRuleBuilderInitial<T, TProperty> When<T, TProperty>(this IRuleBuilderInitial<T, TProperty> rule, Func<T, bool> predicate, ApplyConditionTo applyConditionTo = ApplyConditionTo.AllValidators)
{
return rule.Configure(config =>
{
PropertyRule propertyRule = config;
int num = (int)applyConditionTo;
propertyRule.ApplyCondition(ctx => predicate((T)ctx.InstanceToValidate), (ApplyConditionTo)num);
});
}
public static IRuleBuilderInitial<T, TProperty> Custom<T, TProperty, TProperty2>(this IRuleBuilder<T, TProperty> ruleBuilder, Expression<Func<TProperty, TProperty2>> expression, AbstractValidator<TProperty2> validator)
{
var propChain = PropertyChain.FromExpression(expression);
var propName = propChain.ToString();
var prop = expression.Compile();
Func<string, string, string> joinStr = (s1, s2) => string.Join(".", new[] { s1, s2 }.Where(s => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(s)));
return ruleBuilder.Custom((p, context) =>
{
var val = prop(p);
var validationResult = validator.Validate(val);
propName = joinStr(context.PropertyName, propName);
foreach (var failure in validationResult.Errors)
{
failure.PropertyName = joinStr(propName, failure.PropertyName);
context.AddFailure(failure);
}
});
}
}
RuleFor(p => p).Custom(p => p.MainProperty, new MainPropertyValidator()).When(p =>
{
var checkMainProperty = p.MainProperty.Id != -1;
if (!checkMainProperty)
{
// Some actions...
}
return checkMainProperty;
});

Why there is no expression sequencing operator? [duplicate]

I'm using some functional stuff in C# and keep getting stuck on the fact that List.Add doesn't return the updated list.
In general, I'd like to call a function on an object and then return the updated object.
For example it would be great if C# had a comma operator:
((accum, data) => accum.Add(data), accum)
I could write my own "comma operator" like this:
static T comma(Action a, Func<T> result) {
a();
return result();
}
It looks like it would work but the call site would ugly. My first example would be something like:
((accum, data) => comma(accum.Add(data), ()=>accum))
Enough examples! What's the cleanest way to do this without another developer coming along later and wrinkling his or her nose at the code smell?

I know this as Fluent.
A Fluent example of a List.Add using Extension Methods
static List<T> MyAdd<T>(this List<T> list, T element)
{
list.Add(element);
return list;
}

I know that this thread is very old, but I want to append the following information for future users:
There isn't currently such an operator. During the C# 6 development cycle a semicolon operator was added, as:
int square = (int x = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine()); Console.WriteLine(x - 2); x * x);
which can be translated as follows:
int square = compiler_generated_Function();
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
private int compiler_generated_Function()
{
int x = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.WriteLine(x - 2);
return x * x;
}
However, this feature was dropped before the final C# release.

You can do almost exactly the first example naturally using code blocks in C# 3.0.
((accum, data) => { accum.Add(data); return accum; })

This is what Concat http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb302894%28v=vs.100%29.aspx is for. Just wrap a single item in an array. Functional code should not mutate the original data. If performance is a concern, and this isn't good enough, then you'll no longer be using the functional paradigm.
((accum, data) => accum.Concat(new[]{data}))

Another technique, straight from functional programming, is as follows. Define an IO struct like this:
/// <summary>TODO</summary>
public struct IO<TSource> : IEquatable<IO<TSource>> {
/// <summary>Create a new instance of the class.</summary>
public IO(Func<TSource> functor) : this() { _functor = functor; }
/// <summary>Invokes the internal functor, returning the result.</summary>
public TSource Invoke() => (_functor | Default)();
/// <summary>Returns true exactly when the contained functor is not null.</summary>
public bool HasValue => _functor != null;
X<Func<TSource>> _functor { get; }
static Func<TSource> Default => null;
}
and make it a LINQ-able monad with these extension methods:
[SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Naming", "CA1724:TypeNamesShouldNotMatchNamespaces")]
public static class IO {
public static IO<TSource> ToIO<TSource>( this Func<TSource> source) {
source.ContractedNotNull(nameof(source));
return new IO<TSource>(source);
}
public static IO<TResult> Select<TSource,TResult>(this IO<TSource> #this,
Func<TSource,TResult> projector
) =>
#this.HasValue && projector!=null
? New(() => projector(#this.Invoke()))
: Null<TResult>();
public static IO<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,TResult>(this IO<TSource> #this,
Func<TSource,IO<TResult>> selector
) =>
#this.HasValue && selector!=null
? New(() => selector(#this.Invoke()).Invoke())
: Null<TResult>();
public static IO<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,T,TResult>(this IO<TSource> #this,
Func<TSource, IO<T>> selector,
Func<TSource,T,TResult> projector
) =>
#this.HasValue && selector!=null && projector!=null
? New(() => { var s = #this.Invoke(); return projector(s, selector(s).Invoke()); } )
: Null<TResult>();
public static IO<TResult> New<TResult> (Func<TResult> functor) => new IO<TResult>(functor);
private static IO<TResult> Null<TResult>() => new IO<TResult>(null);
}
and now you can use the LINQ comprehensive syntax thus:
using Xunit;
[Fact]
public static void IOTest() {
bool isExecuted1 = false;
bool isExecuted2 = false;
bool isExecuted3 = false;
bool isExecuted4 = false;
IO<int> one = new IO<int>( () => { isExecuted1 = true; return 1; });
IO<int> two = new IO<int>( () => { isExecuted2 = true; return 2; });
Func<int, IO<int>> addOne = x => { isExecuted3 = true; return (x + 1).ToIO(); };
Func<int, Func<int, IO<int>>> add = x => y => { isExecuted4 = true; return (x + y).ToIO(); };
var query1 = ( from x in one
from y in two
from z in addOne(y)
from _ in "abc".ToIO()
let addOne2 = add(x)
select addOne2(z)
);
Assert.False(isExecuted1); // Laziness.
Assert.False(isExecuted2); // Laziness.
Assert.False(isExecuted3); // Laziness.
Assert.False(isExecuted4); // Laziness.
int lhs = 1 + 2 + 1;
int rhs = query1.Invoke().Invoke();
Assert.Equal(lhs, rhs); // Execution.
Assert.True(isExecuted1);
Assert.True(isExecuted2);
Assert.True(isExecuted3);
Assert.True(isExecuted4);
}
When one desires an IO monad that composes but returns only void, define this struct and dependent methods:
public struct Unit : IEquatable<Unit>, IComparable<Unit> {
[CLSCompliant(false)]
public static Unit _ { get { return _this; } } static Unit _this = new Unit();
}
public static IO<Unit> ConsoleWrite(object arg) =>
ReturnIOUnit(() => Write(arg));
public static IO<Unit> ConsoleWriteLine(string value) =>
ReturnIOUnit(() => WriteLine(value));
public static IO<ConsoleKeyInfo> ConsoleReadKey() => new IO<ConsoleKeyInfo>(() => ReadKey());
which readily allow the writing of code fragments like this:
from pass in Enumerable.Range(0, int.MaxValue)
let counter = Readers.Counter(0)
select ( from state in gcdStartStates
where _predicate(pass, counter())
select state )
into enumerable
where ( from _ in Gcd.Run(enumerable.ToList()).ToIO()
from __ in ConsoleWrite(Prompt(mode))
from c in ConsoleReadKey()
from ___ in ConsoleWriteLine()
select c.KeyChar.ToUpper() == 'Q'
).Invoke()
select 0;
where the old C comma operator is readily recognized for what it is: a monadic compose operation.
The true merit of the comprehension syntax is apparent when one attempts to write that fragment in the flunt style:
( Enumerable.Range(0,int.MaxValue)
.Select(pass => new {pass, counter = Readers.Counter(0)})
.Select(_ => gcdStartStates.Where(state => _predicate(_.pass,_.counter()))
.Select(state => state)
)
).Where(enumerable =>
( (Gcd.Run(enumerable.ToList()) ).ToIO()
.SelectMany(_ => ConsoleWrite(Prompt(mode)),(_,__) => new {})
.SelectMany(_ => ConsoleReadKey(), (_, c) => new {c})
.SelectMany(_ => ConsoleWriteLine(), (_,__) => _.c.KeyChar.ToUpper() == 'Q')
).Invoke()
).Select(list => 0);

The extension method is arguably the best solution, but for completeness' sake, don't forget the obvious alternative: a wrapper class.
public class FList<T> : List<T>
{
public new FList<T> Add(T item)
{
base.Add(item);
return this;
}
public new FList<T> RemoveAt(int index)
{
base.RemoveAt(index);
return this;
}
// etc...
}
{
var list = new FList<string>();
list.Add("foo").Add("remove me").Add("bar").RemoveAt(1);
}

I thought it would be interesting to make a version of my wrapper class answer that doesn't require you write the wrapper methods.
public class FList<T> : List<T>
{
public FList<T> Do(string method, params object[] args)
{
var methodInfo = GetType().GetMethod(method);
if (methodInfo == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("I have no " + method + " method.");
if (methodInfo.ReturnType != typeof(void))
throw new InvalidOperationException("I'm only meant for void methods.");
methodInfo.Invoke(this, args);
return this;
}
}
{
var list = new FList<string>();
list.Do("Add", "foo")
.Do("Add", "remove me")
.Do("Add", "bar")
.Do("RemoveAt", 1)
.Do("Insert", 1, "replacement");
foreach (var item in list)
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Output:
foo
replacement
bar
EDIT
You can slim down the syntax by exploiting C# indexed properties.
Simply add this method:
public FList<T> this[string method, params object[] args]
{
get { return Do(method, args); }
}
And the call now looks like:
list = list["Add", "foo"]
["Add", "remove me"]
["Add", "bar"]
["RemoveAt", 1]
["Insert", 1, "replacement"];
With the linebreaks being optional, of course.
Just a bit of fun hacking the syntax.

EF6 Mocking derived DbSets

I am trying to apply the new mocking of EF6 to my existing code.
I have a class that Extends DbSet. One of the methods call the base class (BdSet) Create method. Here is the a sample code (not the complete solution or real names):
public class DerivedDbSet<TEntity> : DbSet<TEntity>, IKeyValueDbSet<TEntity>, IOrderedQueryable<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
public virtual bool Add(string value1, string value2) {
var entity = Create(); // There is no direct implementation of the Create method it is calling the base method
// Do something with the values
this.Add(entity);
return true;
}
}
I am mocking using the Test Doubles sample (here is the peace of code):
var data = new List<DummyEntity> {
new DummyEntity { Value1 = "First", Value2 = "001" },
new DummyEntity { Value1 = "Second", Value2 = "002" }
}.AsQueryable();
var mock = new Mock<DerivedDbSet<DummyEntity>>();
mock.CallBase = true;
mock.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(source.Provider);
mock.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(source.Expression);
mock.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(source.ElementType);
mock.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(source.GetEnumerator());
I've set the CallBase property to true to try to force the call to the base class...
But I keep receiving the following error:
System.NotImplementedException: The member 'Create' has not been implemented on type 'DerivedDbSet1Proxy' which inherits from 'DbSet1'. Test doubles for 'DbSet`1' must provide implementations of methods and properties that are used.
I want the call of create to fallback to the default implementation in DbSet.
Can someone help me with that?

After some struggle with the internal functions and async references of mocking a DbSet I came out with a helper class that solved most of my problems and might serve as base to someone implementation.
Here is the code:
public static class MockHelper
{
internal class TestDbAsyncQueryProvider<TEntity> : IDbAsyncQueryProvider {
private readonly IQueryProvider _inner;
internal TestDbAsyncQueryProvider(IQueryProvider inner) { _inner = inner; }
public IQueryable CreateQuery(Expression expression) { return new TestDbAsyncEnumerable<TEntity>(expression); }
public IQueryable<TElement> CreateQuery<TElement>(Expression expression) { return new TestDbAsyncEnumerable<TElement>(expression); }
public object Execute(Expression expression) { return _inner.Execute(expression); }
public TResult Execute<TResult>(Expression expression) { return _inner.Execute<TResult>(expression); }
public Task<object> ExecuteAsync(Expression expression, CancellationToken cancellationToken) { return Task.FromResult(Execute(expression)); }
public Task<TResult> ExecuteAsync<TResult>(Expression expression, CancellationToken cancellationToken) { return Task.FromResult(Execute<TResult>(expression)); }
}
internal class TestDbAsyncEnumerable<T> : EnumerableQuery<T>, IDbAsyncEnumerable<T> {
public TestDbAsyncEnumerable(IEnumerable<T> enumerable) : base(enumerable) { }
public TestDbAsyncEnumerable(Expression expression) : base(expression) { }
public IDbAsyncEnumerator<T> GetAsyncEnumerator() { return new TestDbAsyncEnumerator<T>(this.AsEnumerable().GetEnumerator()); }
IDbAsyncEnumerator IDbAsyncEnumerable.GetAsyncEnumerator() { return GetAsyncEnumerator(); }
public IQueryProvider Provider { get { return new TestDbAsyncQueryProvider<T>(this); } }
}
internal class TestDbAsyncEnumerator<T> : IDbAsyncEnumerator<T> {
private readonly IEnumerator<T> _inner;
public TestDbAsyncEnumerator(IEnumerator<T> inner) { _inner = inner; }
public void Dispose() { _inner.Dispose(); }
public Task<bool> MoveNextAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken) { return Task.FromResult(_inner.MoveNext()); }
public T Current { get { return _inner.Current; } }
object IDbAsyncEnumerator.Current { get { return Current; } }
}
public static Mock<TDbSet> CreateDbSet<TDbSet, TEntity>(IList<TEntity> data, Func<object[], TEntity> find = null)
where TDbSet : class, IDbSet<TEntity>
where TEntity : class, new() {
var source = data.AsQueryable();
var mock = new Mock<TDbSet> { CallBase = true };
mock.As<IQueryable<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(source.Expression);
mock.As<IQueryable<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(source.ElementType);
mock.As<IQueryable<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(source.GetEnumerator());
mock.As<IQueryable<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(new TestDbAsyncQueryProvider<TEntity>(source.Provider));
mock.As<IDbAsyncEnumerable<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.GetAsyncEnumerator()).Returns(new TestDbAsyncEnumerator<TEntity>(data.GetEnumerator()));
mock.As<IDbSet<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.Create()).Returns(new TEntity());
mock.As<IDbSet<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.Add(It.IsAny<TEntity>())).Returns<TEntity>(i => { data.Add(i); return i; });
mock.As<IDbSet<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.Remove(It.IsAny<TEntity>())).Returns<TEntity>(i => { data.Remove(i); return i; });
if (find != null) mock.As<IDbSet<TEntity>>().Setup(m => m.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Returns(find);
return mock;
}
public static Mock<DbSet<TEntity>> CreateDbSet<TEntity>(IList<TEntity> data, Func<object[], TEntity> find = null)
where TEntity : class, new() {
return CreateDbSet<DbSet<TEntity>, TEntity>(data, find);
}
}
And here is a use sample (based on the names I've given before):
var data = new List<DummyEntity> {
new DummyEntity { Value1 = "First", Value2 = "001" } },
new DummyEntity { Value1 = "Second", Value2 = "002" } }
};
var mockDummyEntities = MockHelper.CreateDbSet<DerivedDbSet<DummyEntities>, DummyEntities>(data, i => data.FirstOrDefault(k => k.Value2 == (string)i[0]));
var mockContext = new Mock<DummyDbContext>();
mockContext.Setup(c => c.DummyEntities).Returns(mockDummyEntities.Object);
Any suggestions on how to improve this solution is very welcome.
Regards

This is a modified version based on Andre that worked for me. Note, that I did not need the async references. Code will add all derived classes (if any)
Usage:
/// <summary>
///
/// </summary>
[TestMethod]
public void SomeTest()
{
//Setup
var mockContext = new Mock<FakeDbContext>();
//SomeClass can be abstract or concrete
mockContext.createFakeDBSet<SomeClass>();
var db = mockContext.Object;
//Setup create(s) if needed on concrete classes
//Mock.Get(db.Set<SomeOtherClass>()).Setup(x => x.Create()).Returns(new SomeOtherClass());
//DO Stuff
var list1 = db.Set<SomeClass>().ToList();
//SomeOtherClass derived from SomeClass
var subList1 = db.Set<SomeOtherClass>().ToList();
CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(list1.OfType<SomeOtherClass>.ToList(), subList1);
}
Code:
/// <summary>
/// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21943328/ef6-mocking-derived-dbsets
/// </summary>
public static class MoqSetupExtensions
{
static IEnumerable<Type> domainTypes = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies().SelectMany(x => x.GetTypes());
public static Mock<DbSet<T>> createFakeDBSet<T>(this Mock<FakeDbContext> db, List<T> list = null, Func<List<T>, object[], T> find = null, bool createDerivedSets = true) where T : class
{
list = list ?? new List<T>();
var data = list.AsQueryable();
//var mockSet = MockHelper.CreateDbSet(list, find);
var mockSet = new Mock<DbSet<T>>() { CallBase = true };
mockSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(() => { return data.Provider; });
mockSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(() => { return data.Expression; });
mockSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(() => { return data.ElementType; });
mockSet.As<IQueryable<T>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(() => { return list.GetEnumerator(); });
mockSet.Setup(m => m.Add(It.IsAny<T>())).Returns<T>(i => { list.Add(i); return i; });
mockSet.Setup(m => m.AddRange(It.IsAny<IEnumerable<T>>())).Returns<IEnumerable<T>>((i) => { list.AddRange(i); return i; });
mockSet.Setup(m => m.Remove(It.IsAny<T>())).Returns<T>(i => { list.Remove(i); return i; });
if (find != null) mockSet.As<IDbSet<T>>().Setup(m => m.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Returns<object[]>((i) => { return find(list, i); });
//mockSet.Setup(m => m.Create()).Returns(new T());
db.Setup(x => x.Set<T>()).Returns(mockSet.Object);
//Setup all derived classes
if (createDerivedSets)
{
var type = typeof(T);
var concreteTypes = domainTypes.Where(x => type.IsAssignableFrom(x) && type != x).ToList();
var method = typeof(MoqSetupExtensions).GetMethod("createFakeDBSetSubType");
foreach (var item in concreteTypes)
{
var invokeResult = method.MakeGenericMethod(type, item)
.Invoke(null, new object[] { db, mockSet });
}
}
return mockSet;
}
public static Mock<DbSet<SubType>> createFakeDBSetSubType<BaseType, SubType>(this Mock<FakeDbContext> db, Mock<DbSet<BaseType>> baseSet)
where BaseType : class
where SubType : class, BaseType
{
var dbSet = db.Object.Set<BaseType>();
var mockSet = new Mock<DbSet<SubType>>() { CallBase = true };
mockSet.As<IQueryable<SubType>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(() => { return dbSet.OfType<SubType>().Provider; });
mockSet.As<IQueryable<SubType>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(() => { return dbSet.OfType<SubType>().Expression; });
mockSet.As<IQueryable<SubType>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(() => { return dbSet.OfType<SubType>().ElementType; });
mockSet.As<IQueryable<SubType>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(() => { return dbSet.OfType<SubType>().GetEnumerator(); });
mockSet.Setup(m => m.Add(It.IsAny<SubType>())).Returns<SubType>(i => { dbSet.Add(i); return i; });
mockSet.Setup(m => m.AddRange(It.IsAny<IEnumerable<SubType>>())).Returns<IEnumerable<SubType>>((i) => { dbSet.AddRange(i); return i; });
mockSet.Setup(m => m.Remove(It.IsAny<SubType>())).Returns<SubType>(i => { dbSet.Remove(i); return i; });
mockSet.As<IDbSet<SubType>>().Setup(m => m.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Returns<object[]>((i) => { return dbSet.Find(i) as SubType; });
baseSet.Setup(m => m.Create<SubType>()).Returns(() => { return mockSet.Object.Create(); });
db.Setup(x => x.Set<SubType>()).Returns(mockSet.Object);
return mockSet;
}
}

Microsoft published a very well explained guide providing an in-memory implementation of DbSet which has a complete implemention for all the methods on DbSet.
Check the article at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/dn314431.aspx#doubles

Using IEqualityComparer for Union

I simply want to remove duplicates from two lists and combine them into one list. I also need to be able to define what a duplicate is. I define a duplicate by the ColumnIndex property, if they are the same, they are duplicates. Here is the approach I took:
I found a nifty example of how to write inline comparers for the random occassions where you need em only once in a code segment.
public class InlineComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
private readonly Func<T, T, bool> getEquals;
private readonly Func<T, int> getHashCode;
public InlineComparer(Func<T, T, bool> equals, Func<T, int> hashCode)
{
getEquals = equals;
getHashCode = hashCode;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return getEquals(x, y);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
return getHashCode(obj);
}
}
Then I just have my two lists, and attempt a union on them with the comparer.
var formatIssues = issues.Where(i => i.IsFormatError == true);
var groupIssues = issues.Where(i => i.IsGroupError == true);
var dupComparer = new InlineComparer<Issue>((i1, i2) => i1.ColumnInfo.ColumnIndex == i2.ColumnInfo.ColumnIndex,
i => i.ColumnInfo.ColumnIndex);
var filteredIssues = groupIssues.Union(formatIssues, dupComparer);
The result set however is null.
Where am I going astray?
I have already confirmed that the two lists have columns with equal ColumnIndex properties.

I've just run your code on a test set.... and it works!
public class InlineComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
private readonly Func<T, T, bool> getEquals;
private readonly Func<T, int> getHashCode;
public InlineComparer(Func<T, T, bool> equals, Func<T, int> hashCode)
{
getEquals = equals;
getHashCode = hashCode;
}
public bool Equals(T x, T y)
{
return getEquals(x, y);
}
public int GetHashCode(T obj)
{
return getHashCode(obj);
}
}
class TestClass
{
public string S { get; set; }
}
[TestMethod]
public void testThis()
{
var l1 = new List<TestClass>()
{
new TestClass() {S = "one"},
new TestClass() {S = "two"},
};
var l2 = new List<TestClass>()
{
new TestClass() {S = "three"},
new TestClass() {S = "two"},
};
var dupComparer = new InlineComparer<TestClass>((i1, i2) => i1.S == i2.S, i => i.S.GetHashCode());
var unionList = l1.Union(l2, dupComparer);
Assert.AreEqual(3, unionList);
}
So... maybe go back and check your test data - or run it with some other test data?
After all - for a Union to be empty - that suggests that both your input lists are also empty?

A slightly simpler way:
it does preserve the original order
it ignores dupes as it finds them
Uses a link extension method:
formatIssues.Union(groupIssues).DistinctBy(x => x.ColumnIndex)
This is the DistinctBy lambda method from MoreLinq
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey>
(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{
HashSet<TKey> knownKeys = new HashSet<TKey>();
foreach (TSource element in source)
{
if (knownKeys.Add(keySelector(element)))
{
yield return element;
}
}
}

Would the Linq Except method not do it for you?
var formatIssues = issues.Where(i => i.IsFormatError == true);
var groupIssues = issues.Where(i => i.IsGroupError == true);
var dupeIssues = issues.Where(i => issues.Except(new List<Issue> {i})
.Any(x => x.ColumnIndex == i.ColumnIndex));
var filteredIssues = formatIssues.Union(groupIssues).Except(dupeIssues);

Filtering duplicates out of an IEnumerable

I have this code:
class MyObj {
int Id;
string Name;
string Location;
}
IEnumerable<MyObj> list;
I want to convert list to a dictionary like this:
list.ToDictionary(x => x.Name);
but it tells me I have duplicate keys. How can I keep only the first item for each key?

I suppose the easiest way would be to group by key and take the first element of each group:
list.GroupBy(x => x.name).Select(g => g.First()).ToDictionary(x => x.name);
Or you could use Distinct if your objects implement IEquatable to compare between themselves by key:
// I'll just randomly call your object Person for this example.
class Person : IEquatable<Person>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Equals(Person other)
{
if (other == null)
return false;
return Name == other.Name;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return base.Equals(obj as Person);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return Name.GetHashCode();
}
}
...
list.Distinct().ToDictionary(x => x.Name);
Or if you don't want to do that (maybe because you normally want to compare for equality in a different way, so Equals is already in use) you could make a custom implementation of IEqualityComparer just for this case:
class PersonComparer : IEqualityComparer<Person>
{
public bool Equals(Person x, Person y)
{
if (x == null)
return y == null;
if (y == null)
return false;
return x.Name == y.Name;
}
public int GetHashCode(Person obj)
{
return obj.Name.GetHashCode();
}
}
...
list.Distinct(new PersonComparer()).ToDictionary(x => x.Name);

list.Distinct().ToDictionary(x => x.Name);

You could also create your own Distinct extension overload method that accepted a Func<> for choosing the distinct key:
public static class EnumerationExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<TSource> Distinct<TSource,TKey>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource,TKey> keySelector)
{
KeyComparer comparer = new KeyComparer(keySelector);
return source.Distinct(comparer);
}
private class KeyComparer<TSource,TKey> : IEqualityComparer<TSource>
{
private Func<TSource,TKey> keySelector;
public DelegatedComparer(Func<TSource,TKey> keySelector)
{
this.keySelector = keySelector;
}
bool IEqualityComparer.Equals(TSource a, TSource b)
{
if (a == null && b == null) return true;
if (a == null || b == null) return false;
return keySelector(a) == keySelector(b);
}
int IEqualityComparer.GetHashCode(TSource obj)
{
return keySelector(obj).GetHashCode();
}
}
}
Apologies for any bad code formatting, I wanted to reduce the size of the code on the page. Anyway, you can then use ToDictionary:
var dictionary = list.Distinct(x => x.Name).ToDictionary(x => x.Name);

Could make your own perhaps? For example:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IDictionary<TKey, TValue> ToDictionary2<TKey, TValue>(
this IEnumerable<TValue> subjects, Func<TValue, TKey> keySelector)
{
var dictionary = new Dictionary<TKey, TValue>();
foreach(var subject in subjects)
{
var key = keySelector(subject);
if(!dictionary.ContainsKey(key))
dictionary.Add(key, subject);
}
return dictionary;
}
}
var dictionary = list.ToDictionary2(x => x.Name);
Haven't tested it, but should work. (and it should probably have a better name than ToDictionary2 :p)
Alternatively, you can implement a DistinctBy method, for example like this:
public static IEnumerable<TSubject> DistinctBy<TSubject, TValue>(this IEnumerable<TSubject> subjects, Func<TSubject, TValue> valueSelector)
{
var set = new HashSet<TValue>();
foreach(var subject in subjects)
if(set.Add(valueSelector(subject)))
yield return subject;
}
var dictionary = list.DistinctBy(x => x.Name).ToDictionary(x => x.Name);

The problem here is that the ToDictionary extension method does not support multiple values with the same key. One solution is to write a version which does and use that instead.
public static Dictionary<TKey,TValue> ToDictionaryAllowDuplicateKeys<TKey,TValue>(
this IEnumerable<TValue> values,
Func<TValue,TKey> keyFunc) {
var map = new Dictionary<TKey,TValue>();
foreach ( var cur in values ) {
var key = keyFunc(cur);
map[key] = cur;
}
return map;
}
Now converting to a dictionary is straight forward
var map = list.ToDictionaryAllowDuplicateKeys(x => x.Name);

The following will work if you have different instances of MyObj with the same value for the Name property. It will take the first instance found for each duplicate (sorry for the obj - obj2 notation, it is just sample code):
list.SelectMany(obj => new MyObj[] {list.Where(obj2 => obj2.Name == obj.Name).First()}).Distinct();
EDIT: Joren's solution is better as it does not create unnecessary arrays in the process.