To see my problem in action, visit www.apoads.com and hover over the "Local Businesses" menu item. It's a series of nested unordered lists generated from a db call. Go ahead and click on a few of the items underneath "Local Businesses", you'll see that most of the categories are empty (the site is very new).
Problem:
I only want to show the categories that actually contain a local business. Here's what my category schema looks like:
int BizCatID - PK,Identity (used in FK relation to the table named Biz)
int? ParentID - BizCatID of this rows parentID, null means no parent
nvarchar Name - name of the category
nvarchar Caption - quick description of the category
What I've tried:
I've tried to update my LINQ query like so:
from c in db.BizCategories where c.ParentID != null && c.Bizs.Count() > 0 select c;
That obviously won't work, cause I'll need the parent category to show if the child category contains a business. So I tried this:
from c in db.BizCategories where c.Bizs.Count() > 0 select c;
This doesn't work either, as parent categories will never have any businesses under them. So it seems like I'll need to do some sort of inverse recursion, but I'm not sure how to do that.
Or, perhaps I'm making things to hard for myself and I need to change my db schemas?
create classes to hold your information like so
public class BusinessCat
{
public string Name{get;set;}
public string Caption{get;set;}
public List<'dunno datatype'> Children{get;set;};
}
var results = from c in BizCategories
where c.ParentID == null
select new BusinessCat{
Name = c.Name,
Caption = c.Caption,
Children = (from d in BizCategories
where d.ParentID == c.BizCatID && d.Bizs.Count() > 0 select d).ToList()
}
and with this you have a list full of Children and you can simply iterate through it with a foreach.
You can also do .Join() extension method for
where d.ParentID == c.BizCatID && d.Bizs.Count()
I'm not sure about the recursion bit but this might get you started. Is a two-level query.
I'm guessing you want to support any number of levels.
var allcats = (from c in db. BizCategories
select c).ToList(); // This will retrieve them all from the database.
var twoLevels = from c in allcats
where c.ParentID == null
select new {
Name = c.Name, Caption = c.Caption,
Children =
from d in allcats
where d.ParentID == c.BizCatID
select d
};
A query like this is getting close to what I need:
from c in BizCategories
where c.ParentID == null
select new {
Name = c.Name, Caption = c.Caption,
Children =
from d in BizCategories
where d.ParentID == c.BizCatID && d.Bizs.Count() > 0
select d
}
I should be able run another LINQ query over these results and pull out exactly what I need. Not at a computer where I can test that now, but will reply once I can. Thanks!
Related
Using the technique found on the MSDN article "How to: Perform Left Outer Joins (C# Programming Guide)", I attempted to create a left outer join in my Linq code. The article mentions using the DefaultIfEmpty method in order to create a left outer join from a group join. Basically, it instructs the program to include the results of the left (first) collection even if there are no results in the right collection.
The way this program executes, however, it does so as if the outer join has not been specified.
In our database, AgentProductTraining is a collection of courses our agents have taken. Normally you cannot enter a Course onto it's appropriate table without entering a corresponding value into the CourseMaterials table. However, occasionally this may happen, so we want to make sure we return results even when a Course is listed in AgentProductTraining without any corresponding information in CourseMaterials.
var training = from a in db.AgentProductTraining
join m in db.CourseMaterials on a.CourseCode equals m.CourseCode into apm
where
a.SymNumber == id
from m in apm.DefaultIfEmpty()
where m.EffectiveDate <= a.DateTaken
&& ((m.TerminationDate > a.DateTaken) | (m.TerminationDate == null))
select new
{
a.AgentProdTrainId,
a.CourseCode,
a.Course.CourseDescription,
a.Course.Partner,
a.DateTaken,
a.DateExpired,
a.LastChangeOperator,
a.LastChangeDate,
a.ProductCode,
a.Product.ProductDescription,
m.MaterialId,
m.Description,
a.Method
};
The MSDN example uses a new variable subpet:
var query = from person in people
join pet in pets on person equals pet.Owner into gj
from subpet in gj.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { person.FirstName, PetName = (subpet == null ? String.Empty : subpet.Name) };
So you must use your own "subpet", I rewrote your code using the submat variable:
var training = from a in db.AgentProductTraining
join m in db.CourseMaterials on a.CourseCode equals m.CourseCode into apm
where
a.SymNumber == id
from submat in apm.DefaultIfEmpty()
where
(submat.EffectiveDate <= a.DateTaken || submat.EffectiveDate == null) &&
(submat.TerminationDate > a.DateTaken || submat.TerminationDate == null)
select new
{
a.AgentProdTrainId,
a.CourseCode,
a.Course.CourseDescription,
a.Course.Partner,
a.DateTaken,
a.DateExpired,
a.LastChangeOperator,
a.LastChangeDate,
a.ProductCode,
a.Product.ProductDescription,
MaterialId = (submat==null?-1:submat.MaterialId),
Description = (submat==null?String.Empty:submat.Description),
a.Method
};
I have created a set of search results, and I wish to create a filter of available cats, with the number of results within that filter. however I get the most strangest error when trying to do this.
Unable to create a constant value of type 'NAMESPACE.Models.Products'. Only primitive types ('such as Int32, String, and Guid') are supported in this context.
this is the code i have tried:
var cats = (from p in ctx1.SubCategories
where myCats.Contains(p.subCategoryId) && p.enabled
select new
AvailableSubCats
{
CategoryName = p.subCategoryName,
Id = p.subCategoryId,
TotalItems = model.Count(x => x.subCategoryId == p.subCategoryId)
}).Distinct();
Products is the object that is called model on the line of totalItems.
I have also tried this:
var cats = from c in ctx1.SubCategories
join p in model on c.subCategoryId equals p.subCategorySubId
group p by c.subCategoryName
into g
select new
AvailableSubCats
{
CategoryName = g.Key,
Id = 0,
TotalItems = g.Count()
};
with the same error, and dont like this because i dont know how to get the name of the category and its ID.
help much appreciated.
thanks
p.s I am using Entity framework 4.1, .net 4 and MVC 3, mysql
in short i am trying to run this in linq, but were the the products side is already a result
select c.*, (select count(productId) from Products where Products.subCategoryId = c.subCategoryId) as counter from SubCategories c
You could try turning your list of products into a list of subCategoryId's so EF can understand it. Something like:
var subCategoryIds = model.Select(m => m.subCategoryId);
var cats = (from p in ctx1.SubCategories
ctx1.SubCategories
where myCats.Contains(p.subCategoryId) && p.enabled
select new
AvailableSubCats
{
CategoryName = p.subCategoryName,
Id = p.subCategoryId,
TotalItems = subCategoryIds.Count(x => x == p.subCategoryId)
}).Distinct();
I have a Blogs table related to BlogComments table with a FK.
I need to get, through Linq, all the BlogComments items that match a certain flag
If i do:
db.Blogs.Where(b => b.BlogComments.Where(bc=>bc.Where(bc.Flag1==true));
I get "Cannot implicity convert type IEnumerable to bool"
Which is the best way to solve this problem?
Because this expression:
b.BlogComments.Where(...)
returns an IEnumerable (of BlogComments), but you are then passing it into this method:
db.Blogs.Where(...)
which expects a function that returns a bool, not an IEnumerable.
You probably need something like this:
var blogId = 5;
db.BlogComments.Where(bc => bc.BlogId == blogId && bc.Flag1 == true)
If you need to select comments from multiple blogs, then you could try using Contains:
var blogIds = new [] {1,2,3,4,5};
db.BlogComments.Where(bc => blogIds.Contains(bc.BlogId) && bc.Flag1 == true)
If you want to place criteria on the set of blogs, as well as the comments, then you could do this in one query using a join:
var query = from b in db.Blogs
join c in db.BlogComments on c.Blog equals b
where b.SomeField == "some value"
&& c.Flag1 == true
select c;
You could write it in LINQ form.
var blogs = from b in db.Blogs
join c in db.BlogComments
on b.BlogId equals c.BlogId
where c.Flag1
select b;
If you have a composite key you can write
on new { A = b.BlogKey1, B = b.BlogKey2 }
equals new { A = c.CommentKey1, B = c.CommentKey2 }
If it were me, I would just have another DbSet in your DbContext.
DbSet<BlogComment> BlogComments
and just search through there without going through Blogs.
db.BlogComments.Where(bc => bc.Flag1 == true);
If anyone knows if there's anything wrong in doing so, then I'm all ears :)
Hi i'm looking for some help in how to append rows to an existing LINQ object. In the controller method below I have two result sets, i'm looping the Sites and want to add a record to the 'results' object for each record in the Sites object.
I've tried concat etc but not getting anywhere, just need s small example to assist, many thanks in advance, J
public IQueryable<UsersToSite> FindAllUsersToSites(int userId,SystemType obj)
{
var results = (from usersToSite in this._db.UsersToSites
where usersToSite.UserId == userId &&
usersToSite.SystemTypeId == obj
orderby usersToSite.Site.SiteDescription
select usersToSite);
// Now for each remaining Site append a record thats not physically in the database. From the view the user will be able to click these records to ADD new
// I'll then build in a search
var sites = (from site in this._db.Sites
where !(from o in _db.UsersToSites where (o.UserId == userId && o.SystemTypeId == obj) select o.SiteId).Contains(site.SiteId)
orderby site.SiteDescription
select site);
foreach (var site in sites)
{
// HERE I want to create the new ROW in results object
//results = new[results] { new { UsersToSiteId = null, AccessTypeId = null } }.Concat(sites);
//SiteId=site.SiteId,
//UsersToSiteId = 0,
//AccessTypeId = 0,
//UserId = userId
}
return results;
}
I don't think you can, if you want to have keep queryable.
However, if you materialize the results with ToList(), then you can:
var sites = (from site in this._db.Sites
where !(from o in _db.UsersToSites where (o.UserId == userId && o.SystemTypeId == obj) select o.SiteId).Contains(site.SiteId)
orderby site.SiteDescription
select site)
.ToList();
sites.Add(new Site { UsersToSiteId = null, etc });
If it was LINQ to Objects, you could do Concat.
The problem here that it can't do ConcatLINQ query that will have one part from SQL and another from objects. You need to materialize results first and then concat to object.
I'm quite new to linq, so please bear with me.
I'm working on a asp.net webpage and I want to add a "search function" (textbox where user inputs name or surname or both or just parts of it and gets back all related information). I have two tables ("Person" and "Application") and I want to display some columns from Person (name and surname) and some from Application (score, position,...). I know how I could do it using sql, but I want to learn more about linq and thus I want to do it using linq.
For now I got two main ideas:
1.)
var person = dataContext.GetTable<Person>();
var application = dataContext.GetTable<Application>();
var p1 = from p in Person
where(p.Name.Contains(tokens[0]) || p.Surname.Contains(tokens[1]))
select new {Id = p.Id, Name = p.Name, Surname = p.Surname}; //or maybe without this line
//I don't know how to do the following properly
var result = from a in Application
where a.FK_Application.Equals(index) //just to get the "right" type of application
//this is not right, but I don't know how to do it better
join p1
on p1.Id == a.FK_Person
2.) The other idea is just to go through "Application" and instead of "join p1 ..." to use
var result = from a in Application
where a.FK_Application.Equals(index) //just to get the "right" type of application
join p from Person
on p.Id == a.FK_Person
where p.Name.Contains(tokens[0]) || p.Surname.Contains(tokens[1])
I think that first idea is better for queries without the first "where" condition, which I also intended to use. Regardless of what is better (faster), I still don't know how to do it using linq. Also in the end I wanted to display / select just some parts (columns) of the result (joined tables + filtering conditions).
I really want to know how to do such things using linq as I'll be dealing also with some similar problems with local data, where I can use only linq.
Could somebody please explain me how to do it, I spent days trying to figure it out and searching on the Internet for answers.
var result = from a in dataContext.Applications
join p in dataContext.Persons
on p.Id equals a.FK_Person
where (p.Name.Contains("blah") || p.Surname.Contains("foo")) && a.FK_Application == index
select new { Id = p.Id, Name = p.Name, Surname = p.Surname, a.Score, a.Position };
Well as Odrahn pointed out, this will give you flat results, with possibly many rows for a single person, since a person could join on multiple applications that all have the same FK. Here's a way to search all the right people, and then add on the relevant application to the results:
var p1 = from p in dataContext.Persons
where(p.Name.Contains(tokens[0]) || p.Surname.Contains(tokens[1]))
select new {
Id = p.Id, Name = p.Name, Surname = p.Surname,
BestApplication = dataContext.Applications.FirstOrDefault(a => a.FK_Application == index /* && ???? */);
};
Sorry - it looks like this second query will result in a roundtrip per person, so it clearly won't be scalable. I assumed L2S would handle it better.
In order to answer this properly, I need to know if Application and Person are directly related (i.e. does Person have many Applications)? From reading your post, I'm assuming that they are because Application seems to have a foreign key to person.
If so, then you could create a custom PersonModel which will be populated by the fields you need from the different entities like this:
class PersonModel
{
string Name { get; set; }
string Surname { get; set; }
List<int> Scores { get; set; }
List<int> Positions { get; set; }
}
Then to populate it, you'd do the following:
// Select the correct person based on Name and Surname inputs
var person = dataContext.Persons.Where(p => p.Name.Contains("firstname") || p.Name.Contains("surname")).FirstOrDefault();
// Get the first person we find (note, there may be many - do you need to account for this?)
if (person != null)
{
var scores = new List<int>();
var positions = new List<int>();
scores.AddRange(person.Applications.Select(i => i.Score);
positions.AddRange(person.Applications.Select(i => i.Position);
var personModel = new PersonModel
{
Name = person.Name,
Surname = person.Surname,
Scores = scores,
Positions = positions
};
}
Because of your relationship between Person and Application, where a person can have many applications, I've had to account for the possibility of there being many scores and positions (hence the List).
Also note that I've used lambda expressions instead of plain linqToSql for simple selecting so that you can visualise easily what's going on.