I have a class, show below, which is used as a key in a Dictionary<ValuesAandB, string>
I'm having issues when trying to find any key within this dictionary, it never finds it at all. As you can see, I have overridden Equals and GetHashCode.
To look for the key I'm using
ValuesAandB key = new ValuesAandB(A,B);
if (DictionaryName.ContainsKey(key)) {
...
}
Is there anything else that I'm missing? Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong?
private class ValuesAandB {
public string valueA;
public string valueB;
// Constructor
public ValuesAandB (string valueAIn, string valueBIn) {
valueA = valueAIn;
valueB = ValueBIn;
}
public class EqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<ValuesAandB> {
public bool Equals(ValuesAandB x, ValuesAandB y) {
return ((x.valueA.Equals(y.valueA)) && (x.valueB.Equals(y.valueB)));
}
public int GetHashCode(ValuesAandB x) {
return x.valueA.GetHashCode() ^ x.valueB.GetHashCode();
}
}
}
And before anyone asks, yes the values are in the Dictionary!
You have not overridden Equals and GetHashCode. You have implemented a second class which can serve as an EqualityComparer. If you don't construct the Dictionary with the EqualityComparer, it will not be used.
The simplest fix would be to override GetHashCode and Equals directly rather than implementing a comparer (comparers are generally only interesting when you need to supply multiple different comparison types (case sensitive and case insensitive for example) or when you need to be able to perform comparisons on a class which you don't control.
I had this problem, turns out the dictionary was comparing referances for my key, not the values in the object.
I was using a custom Point class as keys. I overrode the ToString() and the GetHashCode() methods and viola, key lookup worked fine.
It looks like you're comparing two strings. Iirc, when using .Equals(), you are comparing the reference of the strings, not the actual contents. To implement an EqualityComparer that works with strings, you would want to use the String.Compare() method.
public class EqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<ValuesAandB>
{
public bool Equals(ValuesAandB x, ValuesAandB y)
{
return ((String.Compare(x.valueA,y.valueA) == 0) &&
(String.Compare(x.valueB, y.valueB) == 0));
}
// gethashcode stuff here
}
I could be a little off with the code, that should get you close...
Related
My question is basically the opposite of Dictionary.ContainsKey return False, but a want True and of "the given key was not present in the dictionary" error when using a self-defined class as key:
I want to use a medium-sized class as the dictionary's key, and the dictionary must compare the keys by reference, not by value equality. The problem is, that the class already implements Equals() (which is performing value equality - which is what not what I want here).
Here's a small test class for reproduction:
class CTest
{
public int m_iValue;
public CTest (int i_iValue)
{
m_iValue = i_iValue;
}
public override bool Equals (object i_value)
{
if (ReferenceEquals (null, i_value))
return false;
if (ReferenceEquals (this, i_value))
return true;
if (i_value.GetType () != GetType ())
return false;
return m_iValue == ((CTest)i_value).m_iValue;
}
}
I have NOT yet implemented GetHashCode() (actually I have, but it only returns base.GetHashCode() so far).
Now I created a test program with a dictionary that uses instances of this class as keys. I can add multiple identical instances to the dictionary without problems, but this only works because GetHashCode() returns different values:
private static void Main ()
{
var oTest1 = new CTest (1);
var oTest2 = new CTest (1);
bool bEquals = Equals (oTest1, oTest2); // true
var dict = new Dictionary<CTest, int> ();
dict.Add (oTest1, 1);
dict.Add (oTest2, 2); // works
var iValue1 = dict[oTest1]; // correctly returns 1
var iValue2 = dict[oTest2]; // correctly returns 2
int iH1 = oTest1.GetHashCode (); // values different on each execution
int iH2 = oTest2.GetHashCode (); // values different on each execution, but never equals iH1
}
And the hash values are different every time, maybe because the calculatation in object.GetHashCode() uses some randomization or some numbers that come from the reference handle (which is different for each object).
However, this answer on Why is it important to override GetHashCode when Equals method is overridden? says that GetHashCode() must return the same values for equal objects, so I added
public override int GetHashCode ()
{
return m_iValue;
}
After that, I could not add multiple equal objects to the dictionary any more.
Now, there are two conclusions:
If I removed my own GetHashCode() again, the hash values will be different again and the dictionary can be used. But there may be situations that accidentally give the same hash code for two equal objects, which will cause an exception at runtime, whose cause will for sure never be found. Because of that (little, but not zero) risk, I cannot use a dictionary.
If I correctly implement GetHashCode() like I am supposed to do, I cannot use a dictionary anyway.
What possibilities exist to still use a dictionary?
Like many times before, I had the idea for a solution when writing this question.
You can specify an IEqualityComparer<TKey> in the constructor of the dictionary. There is one in the .net framework, but it's internal sealed, so you need to implement your own:
Is there any kind of "ReferenceComparer" in .NET?
internal class ReferenceComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T> where T : class
{
static ReferenceComparer ()
{
Instance = new ReferenceComparer<T> ();
}
public static ReferenceComparer<T> Instance { get; }
public bool Equals (T x, T y)
{
return ReferenceEquals (x, y);
}
public int GetHashCode (T obj)
{
return System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.GetHashCode (obj);
}
}
I'm comparing two objects of type Triangle and apparently they are deemed equal (I implemented my custom GetHaschCode as well as Equal method and operator).
List<Triangle> triangles = ...;
bool same = triangles[0] == triangles[1];
// same is true
However, when I go Distinct() on that list, it keeps all the elements (which sound to me like it's comparing by reference and not by my custom conditions). Is it so and what can I do about it?
int countBefore = triangles.Count();
int countAfter = triangles.Distinct().Count();
bool same = countBefore == countAfter;
// same is true, again
I'm missing something fairly obvious, am I not?
You can do this in one of two ways...
Either as Andrew says implement IEquatable
public class Triangle : IEquatable<Triangle>
{
bool IEquatable<Triangle>.Equals(Triangle other)
{
return Equals(other);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
//...
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
//...
}
}
Or you could create another class that implements IEqualityComparer(T) and pass that into the Distinct method call.
public class TriangleComparer : IEqualityComparer<Triangle>
{
public bool Equals(Triangle x, Triangle y)
{
return x.Equals(y);
}
public int GetHashCode(Triangle obj)
{
return obj.GetHashCode();
}
}
You need to implement the IEquatable(T) interface in your Triangle class.
From the Enumerable.Distinct() documentation:
The default equality comparer, Default, is used to compare values of
the types that implement the IEquatable generic interface. To
compare a custom data type, you need to implement this interface and
provide your own GetHashCode and Equals methods for the type.
I am trying to get a list of distinct items from a custom collection, however the comparison seems to be getting ignored as I keep getting duplicates appearing in my list. I have debugged the code and I can clearly see that the values in the list that I am comparing are equal...
NOTE: The Id and Id2 values are strings
Custom Comparer:
public class UpsellSimpleComparer : IEqualityComparer<UpsellProduct>
{
public bool Equals(UpsellProduct x, UpsellProduct y)
{
return x.Id == y.Id && x.Id2 == y.Id2;
}
public int GetHashCode(UpsellProduct obj)
{
return obj.GetHashCode();
}
}
Calling code:
var upsellProducts = (Settings.SelectedSeatingPageGuids.Contains(CurrentItem.ID.ToString())) ?
GetAOSUpsellProducts(selectedProductIds) : GetGeneralUpsellProducts(selectedProductIds);
// we use a special comparer here so that same items are not included
var comparer = new UpsellSimpleComparer();
return upsellProducts.Distinct(comparer);
Most likely UpsellProduct has default implementation of GetHashCode that returns unique value for each instance of reference type.
To fix - either implement one correctly in UpsellProduct or in comparer.
public class UpsellSimpleComparer : IEqualityComparer<UpsellProduct>
{
public bool Equals(UpsellProduct x, UpsellProduct y)
{
return x.Id == y.Id && x.Id2 == y.Id2;
}
// sample, correct GetHashCode is a bit more complex
public int GetHashCode(UpsellProduct obj)
{
return obj.Id.GetHashCode() ^ obj.Id2.GetHashCode();
}
}
Note for better code to compute combined GetHashCode check Concise way to combine field hashcodes? and Is it possible to combine hash codes for private members to generate a new hash code?
Your GetHashCode() doesn't return the same values even two UpsellProduct instances are consider equals by your Equals() method.
Use something like this to reflect the same logic instead.
public int GetHashCode(UpsellProduct obj)
{
return obj.Id.GetHashCode() ^ obj.Id2.GetHashCode();
}
I have a class like this
public class TestData
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public string type {get;set;}
public List<string> Members = new List<string>();
public void AddMembers(string[] members)
{
Members.AddRange(members);
}
}
I want to know if it is possible to directly compare to instances of this class to eachother and find out they are exactly the same? what is the mechanism? I am looking gor something like if(testData1 == testData2) //Do Something And if not, how to do so?
You should implement the IEquatable<T> interface on your class, which will allow you to define your equality-logic.
Actually, you should override the Equals method as well.
public class TestData : IEquatable<TestData>
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public string type {get;set;}
public List<string> Members = new List<string>();
public void AddMembers(string[] members)
{
Members.AddRange(members);
}
// Overriding Equals member method, which will call the IEquatable implementation
// if appropriate.
public override bool Equals( Object obj )
{
var other = obj as TestData;
if( other == null ) return false;
return Equals (other);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
// Provide own implementation
}
// This is the method that must be implemented to conform to the
// IEquatable contract
public bool Equals( TestData other )
{
if( other == null )
{
return false;
}
if( ReferenceEquals (this, other) )
{
return true;
}
// You can also use a specific StringComparer instead of EqualityComparer<string>
// Check out the specific implementations (StringComparer.CurrentCulture, e.a.).
if( EqualityComparer<string>.Default.Compare (Name, other.Name) == false )
{
return false;
}
...
// To compare the members array, you could perhaps use the
// [SequenceEquals][2] method. But, be aware that [] {"a", "b"} will not
// be considerd equal as [] {"b", "a"}
return true;
}
}
One way of doing it is to implement IEquatable<T>
public class TestData : IEquatable<TestData>
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public string type {get;set;}
public List<string> Members = new List<string>();
public void AddMembers(string[] members)
{
Members.AddRange(members);
}
public bool Equals(TestData other)
{
if (this.Name != other.Name) return false;
if (this.type != other.type) return false;
// TODO: Compare Members and return false if not the same
return true;
}
}
if (testData1.Equals(testData2))
// classes are the same
You can also just override the Equals(object) method (from System.Object), if you do this you should also override GetHashCode see here
There are three ways objects of some reference type T can be compared to each other:
With the object.Equals method
With an implementation of IEquatable<T>.Equals (only for types that implement IEquatable<T>)
With the comparison operator ==
Furthermore, there are two possibilities for each of these cases:
The static type of the objects being compared is T (or some other base of T)
The static type of the objects being compared is object
The rules you absolutely need to know are:
The default for both Equals and operator== is to test for reference equality
Implementations of Equals will work correctly no matter what the static type of the objects being compared is
IEquatable<T>.Equals should always behave the same as object.Equals, but if the static type of the objects is T it will offer slightly better performance
So what does all of this mean in practice?
As a rule of thumb you should use Equals to check for equality (overriding object.Equals as necessary) and implement IEquatable<T> as well to provide slightly better performance. In this case object.Equals should be implemented in terms of IEquatable<T>.Equals.
For some specific types (such as System.String) it's also acceptable to use operator==, although you have to be careful not to make "polymorphic comparisons". The Equals methods, on the other hand, will work correctly even if you do make such comparisons.
You can see an example of polymorphic comparison and why it can be a problem here.
Finally, never forget that if you override object.Equals you must also override object.GetHashCode accordingly.
I see many good answers here but just in case you want the comparison to work like
if(testData1 == testData2) // DoSomething
instead of using Equals function you can override == and != operators:
public static bool operator == (TestData left, TestData right)
{
bool comparison = true; //Make the desired comparison
return comparison;
}
public static bool operator != (TestData left, TestData right)
{
return !(left == right);
}
You can override the equals method and inside it manually compare the objects
Also take a look at Guidelines for Overloading Equals() and Operator ==
You will need to define the rules that make object A equal to object B and then override the Equals operator for this type.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173147(v=vs.80).aspx
First of all equality is difficult to define and only you can define as to what equality means for you
Does it means members have same value
Or they are pointing to same location.
Here is a discussion and an answer here
What is "Best Practice" For Comparing Two Instances of a Reference Type?
Implement the IEquatable<T> interface. This defines a generalized method that a value type or class implements to create a type-specific method for determining equality of instances. More information here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms131187.aspx
Currently I have this (edited after reading advice):
struct Pair<T, K> : IEqualityComparer<Pair<T, K>>
{
readonly private T _first;
readonly private K _second;
public Pair(T first, K second)
{
_first = first;
_second = second;
}
public T First { get { return _first; } }
public K Second { get { return _second; } }
#region IEqualityComparer<Pair<T,K>> Members
public bool Equals(Pair<T, K> x, Pair<T, K> y)
{
return x.GetHashCode(x) == y.GetHashCode(y);
}
public int GetHashCode(Pair<T, K> obj)
{
int hashCode = obj.First == null ? 0 : obj._first.GetHashCode();
hashCode ^= obj.Second == null ? 0 : obj._second.GetHashCode();
return hashCode;
}
#endregion
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.GetHashCode(this);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return (obj != null) &&
(obj is Pair<T, K>) &&
this.Equals(this, (Pair<T, K>) obj);
}
}
The problem is that First and Second may not be reference types (VS actually warns me about this), but the code still compiles. Should I cast them (First and Second) to objects before I compare them, or is there a better way to do this?
Edit:
Note that I want this struct to support value and reference types (in other words, constraining by class is not a valid solution)
Edit 2:
As to what I'm trying to achieve, I want this to work in a Dictionary. Secondly, SRP isn't important to me right now because that isn't really the essence of this problem - it can always be refactored later. Thirdly, comparing to default(T) will not work in lieu of comparing to null - try it.
Your IEqualityComparer implementation should be a different class (and definately not a struct as you want to reuse the reference).
Also, your hashcode should never be cached, as the default GetHashcode implementation for a struct (which you do not override) will take that member into account.
It looks like you need IEquatable instead:
internal struct Pair<T, K> : IEquatable<Pair<T, K>>
{
private readonly T _first;
private readonly K _second;
public Pair(T first, K second)
{
_first = first;
_second = second;
}
public T First
{
get { return _first; }
}
public K Second
{
get { return _second; }
}
public bool Equals(Pair<T, K> obj)
{
return Equals(obj._first, _first) && Equals(obj._second, _second);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return obj is Pair<T, K> && Equals((Pair<T, K>) obj);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked
{
return (_first != null ? _first.GetHashCode() * 397 : 0) ^ (_second != null ? _second.GetHashCode() : 0);
}
}
}
If you use hashcodes in comparing methods, you should check for "realy value" if the hash codes are same.
bool result = ( x._hashCode == y._hashCode );
if ( result ) { result = ( x._first == y._first && x._second == y._second ); }
// OR?: if ( result ) { result = object.Equals( x._first, y._first ) && object.Equals( x._second, y._second ); }
// OR?: if ( result ) { result = object.ReferenceEquals( x._first, y._first ) && object.Equals( x._second, y._second ); }
return result;
But there is littlebit problem with comparing "_first" and "_second" fields.
By default reference types uses fore equality comparing "object.ReferenceEquals" method, bud they can override them. So the correct solution depends on the "what exactly should do" the your comparing method. Should use "Equals" method of the "_first" & "_second" fields, or object.ReferenceEquals ? Or something more complex?
Regarding the warning, you can use default(T) and default(K) instead of null.
I can't see what you're trying to achieve, but you shouldn't be using the hashcode to compare for equality - there is no guarantee that two different objects won't have the same hashcode. Also even though your struct is immutable, the members _first and _second aren't.
First of all this code violates SRP principle. Pair class used to hold pairs if items, right? It's incorrect to delegate equality comparing functionality to it.
Next let take a look at your code:
Equals method will fail if one of the arguments is null - no good. Equals uses hash code of Pair class, but take a look at the definition of GetHashCode, it just a combination of pair members hash codes - it's has nothing to do with equality of items. I would expect that Equals method will compare actual data. I'm too busy at the moment to provide correct implementation, unfortunately. But from the first look, you code seems to be wrong. It would be better if you provide us description of what you want to achieve. I'm sure SO members will be able to give you some advices.
Might I suggest the use of Lambda expressions as a parameter ?
this would allow you to specify how to compare the internal generic types.
I don't get any warning when compiling about this but I assume you are talking about the == null comparison? A cast seems like it would make this all somewhat cleaner, yes.
PS. You really should use a separate class for the comparer. This class that fills two roles (being a pair and comparing pairs) is plain ugly.