How can I specify conditions in Where predicates in LINQ without getting null reference exceptions. For instance, if q is an IQueryable how can I do like:
Expression<Func<ProductEntity,bool>> predicate = p => !search.CategoryId.HasValue || (search.CategoryId.HasValue && search.CategoryId == p.CategoryId);
var q2 = q.Where(predicate);
Here search is an object that holds possible search conditions that may or may not be set like search.CategoryId might not be set but if it is I want to get the products that are set by that condition.
When I do this I get null reference exceptions.
You can use the null-coalescing operator ?? to replace a possible null value with a default value. The following sets tries to match the search.Category if it exists or simply creates an "always true" expression. This will be optimized by any good Linq query provider (e.g. LinqToSql).
Expression<Func<ProductEntity,bool>> predicate = p => (search.CategoryId ?? p.CategoryId) == p.CategoryId);
var q2 = q.Where(predicate);
Another possibility would be to dynamically compose a query predicate using PredicateBuilder. That's the way I do it for searches with a similar pattern as you use:
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.True<Order>();
if (search.OrderId))
{
predicate = predicate.And(a => SqlMethods.Like(a.OrderID, search.OderID);
}
// ...
var results = q.Where(predicate);
Let's dissect the line:
Expression<Func<ProductEntity,bool> predicate = p => !search.CategoryId.HasValue
|| (search.CategoryId.HasValue && search.CategoryId == p.CategoryId)
var q2 = q.Where(predicate);
So how many ways can we get null problems?
search (your "captured" variable) could be null
p could be null, meaning there is a null in the list
you've handled the case of search.CategoryId being null (Nullable<T>)
but maybe p.CategoryId (the category on a record in the list) is null (Nullable<T>) - however, I'm not sure that this would cause a NullReferenceException
q (the list / source) could be null
So: out of 5 options you've eliminated 1; look at the other 4? There is also the definite possibility that the issue is caused by something invisible not shown in the code; for example the get could be:
public int? CategoryId {
get {return innerObject.CategoryId;}
}
and innerObject could be null; if you eliminate the other 4 (pretty easy to do), look at at this one as a last resort.
Related
I'm working on a LINQ statement. I have a table of cities where the records have either a countryId or a stateId. I'd like to just write the one statement and have the where clause check to see which of the two parameters is null and then select on the one that is not.
Here's what I'm working with:
public List<City> Cities(int? countryTypeId, int? stateTypeId)
{
if (countryTypeId == null && stateTypeId == null)
return null;
return _db.City
.Where(x => x.StateTypeId == stateTypeId
&& x.CountryTypeId == countryTypeId)
.OrderBy(x => x.Description)
.ToDTOs();
}
I'm pretty new to LINQ, and I know this code isn't right, just adding it for context.
If the State and Country ids are all >0 you simply can do this, no need to check for null
.Where(x => x.StateTypeId == stateTypeId.GetValueOrDefault()
&& x.CountryTypeId == countryTypeId.GetValueOrDefault())
Else you need to add the condition if those nullable inputs have value or not, as mentioned in the comment
Edit: after seeing some comments, if you are looking for list of cities based on either of the parameters, then you should be using || not && in your where condition
Where(x => (stateTypeId.HasValue && stateTypeId.Value == x.StateTypeId)
|| (countryTypeId.HasValue && countryTypeId.Value == x.CountryTypeId))
Note the order matters, this code will first check if stateTypeId has value and if it has it'll match only the cities with that stateTypeId
_db.City.Where(c => c.CountryTypeId?.Equals(countryTypeId) ?? false
| c.StateTypeId?.Equals(stateTypeId) ?? false);
Using null conditional operators - when a type Id is null use the null coalescing operator to return false and fail the match - otherwise check for equality and return matching.
Note you cannot short circuit the OR operator here!
I'm not sure if this is the case, but if one of the input parameters was always null and the entries were guaranteed to always have one property null, the following would be a cool solution:
_db.City.Where(c => (c.CountryTypeId ?? c.StateTypeId) == (countryTypeId ?? stateTypeId))
My DBA has sufficiently beaten it into my head that ignoring parameters in a query (ex: WHERE Field = #PARAM or #PARAM IS NULL) can result in very bad things. As a result, I would encourage you to conditionally add only the parameters that you absolutely need. Fortunately, given that you are working with just two possible parameters, this is trivial.
Start with the base of your query, and then add to it.
var queryBase = _db.City.OrderBy(x => x.Description);
if (countryTypeId.HasValue)
{
queryBase = queryBase.Where(x => x.CountryTypeId == countryTypeId);
}
if (stateTypeId.HasValue)
{
queryBase = queryBase.Where(x => x.StateTypeId == stateTypeId);
}
return queryBase.ToDTOs(); // or .ToList() for a more universal outcome
Add whatever logic you may need if parameters are mutually exclusive, one supercedes the other, etc.
Is there a way similar to what we can do with linq for left outer join with method based query syntax.
e.g.
var a = from m in context.MainClass
join r in context.RefClass on m.RefID equals r.ID into joinedent
from j in joinedent.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { m.Name , j.TypeName }
Can I convert this into method based syntax with navigation property default if null
var a = context.MainClass.Select(x=> new {
m.Name
m.RefClass.TypeName // here need default if RefClass is null
})
I can do like (m.RefClass != null)?m.RefClass.TypeName:"" but would like to know if there is a proper way to do this like in above linq.
Thanks
Just use new initialization in DefaultIfEmpty parameter
var a = from m in context.MainClass
join r in context.RefClass on m.RefID equals r.ID on joinedent
from j in joinedent.DefaultIfEmpt(new RefClass())
select new { m.Name , j.TypeName }
Hope the problem will be solve
When EF executes the Linq against the database, the m.RefClass.TypeName would return #null, where the same statement against objects would throw a NullReferenceException.
m.RefClass?.TypeName should return string.Empty in both cases.
Update: As mentioned the ?. is not allowed in expression trees, however the following does work:
var a = context.MainClass.Select(x=> new {
m.Name
TypeName = m.RefClass.TypeName ?? ""
})
EF expressions will return #null for properties where the child reference is null rather than a null reference exception. However checking the RefClass for null would be safer in case the expression gets copied/moved in a way where it would be run against objects rather than through EF.
On a curious side note I did come across an interesting side-effect while testing this: This only works properly if the relationship between parent and child is mapped as optional. (Obviously) In my case I had an existing test relationship that was set up as "Required" or non-nullable. I'd changed the schema to make the child ID null-able and it did not throw any exceptions, it simply returned no rows
Can you try using Include?
var a = context.MainClass.Include("RefClass")
.Select(x => new {
m.Name
m.RefClass.TypeName // here need default if RefClass is null
})
I am stuck with null values in my Datatable "articles". Using LINQ to get a list of articles works for column ArticleId but with column "ArticleVariations" the null values are killing me.
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable().Where(r =>r.Field<String>("ArticleId").Equals(artNo)); // works. no nulls there ;)
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable().Where(r =>r.Field<String>("ArticleVariations").Equals(artNo)); // stuck with nulls here
If the column contains nulls, I get an NullReferenceException, Can I avoid this somehow and is it possible to merge both expressions?
You can use null-conditional and null-coalescing operators:
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable()
.Where(r =>r.Field<String>("ArticleVariations")?.Equals(artNo) ?? false);
The problem obviously occurs because r.Field<String>("ArticleVariations") retuns null. Thus you have to check for null before calling Equals on it.
For that you can call multiple statements within a LINQ-expression:
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable().Where(r => {
var res = r.Field<String>("ArticleVariations");
if (res != null) return res.Equals(artNo);
else return false;
});
If the field can be null then just reverse your test:
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable().Where(r => artNo.Equals(r.Field<String>("ArticleVariations")));
Then all you need to do is check that artNo is not null before making the call:
List<Type> result;
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(artNo))
{
result = new List<Type>();
}
else
{
result = this.articles.... as before
}
Where just takes a function which returns a bool to determine if it should filter an item out of a collection. You can write it with a multi-statement body just like any other function to make nulls easier to deal with. Something like this should be a good starting point:
.Where(r => {
string articleVariations = r.Field<string>("ArticleVariations");
return articleVariations != null && articleVariations.Equals(artNo);
});
IF you want to combine those checks somehow to build a list where one or the other of the given fields matches your artNo, you can just add it to the function body.
If the column contains nulls, I get an NullReferenceException, Can I avoid this somehow
Avoid using instance Equals methods where possible. Use the respective operators or static Equals methods because they handle correctly nulls for you.
In your concrete case, the easiest way is to replace Equals with ==:
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable()
.Where(r => r.Field<string>("ArticleId") == artNo);
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable()
.Where(r => r.Field<string>("ArticleVariations") == artNo);
and is it possible to merge both expressions?
It depends on what do you mean by "merging" them. If you mean matching article or variation by the passed artNo, then you can use something like this
var result = this.articles.AsEnumerable()
.Where(r => r.Field<string>("ArticleId") == artNo
|| r => r.Field<string>("ArticleVariations") == artNo);
I'm trying to do a left-join with the result of another left-join but in some cases it returns me null reference error (obviously), is there any way to do this without using foreach after select?
var result = from f in foo
from ex in exp.Where(w => w.id == f.idFoo).DefaultIfEmpty()
from te in tes.Where(w => w.id == ex.anyID).DefaultIfEmpty()
select new
{
var1 = f.something,
...
var2 = te.anything
};
That's happening because DefaultIfEmpty is returning a sequence with a single null element. Then you are trying to access properties on a null element.
Use the overload of DefaultIfEmpty to return a non-null default value (of the appropriate data type):
var result = from f in foo
from ex in exp.Where(w => w.id == f.idFoo)
.DefaultIfEmpty(new Exp())
from te in tes.Where(w => w.id == ex.anyID)
.DefaultIfEmpty(new Tes())
select new
{
var1 = f.something,
...
var2 = te.anything
};
That way you won't be trying to access properties on null elements.
Edit based on comments. In the query, one place that null elements arise is when a Where results in zero matches. For instance, in the third from the ex variable might be a sequence of one null element, and again in the select the te might also be such a sequence. In both cases, accessing a property will throw an exception.
Alternatively, you could do a null test every time you are going to access a property. That would become verbose fast.
Something like this:
var2 = te != null ? te.anything : null
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();