Search Results

Search found 44 results on 2 pages for 'iequatable'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • How to implement IEquatable<T> when mutable fields are part of the equality - Problem with GetHashCo

    - by Shimmy
    Hello! I am using Entity Framework in my application. I implemented with the partial class of an entity the IEquatable<T> interface: Partial Class Address : Implements IEquatable(Of Address) 'Other part generated Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Address) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Address).Equals If ReferenceEquals(Me, other) Then Return True Return AddressId = other.AddressId End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If obj Is Nothing Then Return MyBase.Equals(obj) If TypeOf obj Is Address Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Address)) Else Return False End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return AddressId.GetHashCode End Function End Class Now in my code I use it this way: Sub Main() Using e As New CompleteKitchenEntities Dim job = e.Job.FirstOrDefault Dim address As New Address() job.Addresses.Add(address) Dim contains1 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'True e.SaveChanges() Dim contains2 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'False 'The problem is that I can't remove it: Dim removed = job.Addresses.Remoeve(address) 'False End Using End Sub Note (I checked in the debugger visualizer) that the EntityCollection class stores its entities in HashSet so it has to do with the GetHashCode function, I want it to depend on the ID so entities are compared by their IDs. The problem is that when I hit save, the ID changes from 0 to its db value. So the question is how can I have an equatable object, being properly hashed. Please help me find what's wrong in the GetHashCode function (by ID) and what can I change to make it work. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • C# dictionary uniqueness for sibling classes using IEquatable<T>

    - by anthony
    I would like to store insances of two classes in a dictionary structure and use IEquatable to determine uniqueness of these instances. Both of these classes share an (abstract) base class. Consider the following classes: abstract class Foo { ... } class SubFoo1 : Foo { ... } class SubFoo2 : Foo { ... } The dictionary will be delcared: Dictionary<Foo, Bar> Which classes should be declared as IEquatable? And what should the generic type T be for those declarations? Is this even possible?

    Read the article

  • Cascading IEquatable(Of T)

    - by Shimmy
    Hello! I have several entities I need to make IEquatable(Of TEntity) respectively. I want them first to check equality between EntityId, then if both are zero, should check regarding to other properties, for example same contact names, same phone number etc. How is this done?

    Read the article

  • What's the difference between IEquatable and just overriding Object.Equals() ?

    - by devoured elysium
    I want my Food class to be able to test whenever it is equal to another class. I will later use it against a List, and I want to use its List.Contains() method. Should I implement IEquatable or just override Object.Equals()? From MSDN: This method determines equality by using the default equality comparer, as defined by the object's implementation of the IEquatable.Equals method for T (the type of values in the list). So my next question is: which functions/classes of the .NET framework make use of Object.Equals()? Should I use it in the first place? Thanks

    Read the article

  • GetHashCode on null fields?

    - by Shimmy
    How do I deal with null fields in GetHashCode function? Module Module1 Sub Main() Dim c As New Contact Dim hash = c.GetHashCode End Sub Public Class Contact : Implements IEquatable(Of Contact) Public Name As String Public Address As String Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Contact) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Contact).Equals Return Name = other.Name AndAlso Address = other.Address End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If ReferenceEquals(Me, obj) Then Return True If TypeOf obj Is Contact Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Contact)) Else Return False End If End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return Name.GetHashCode Xor Address.GetHashCode End Function End Class End Module

    Read the article

  • Problem with custom Equality in Entity Framework

    - by Shimmy
    Hello! I am using Entity Framework in my application. I implemented with the partial class of an entity the IEquatable<T> interface: Partial Class Address : Implements IEquatable(Of Address) 'Other part generated Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Address) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Address).Equals If ReferenceEquals(Me, other) Then Return True Return AddressId = other.AddressId End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If obj Is Nothing Then Return MyBase.Equals(obj) If TypeOf obj Is Address Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Address)) Else Return False End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return AddressId.GetHashCode End Function End Class Now in my code I use it this way: Sub Main() Using e As New CompleteKitchenEntities Dim job = e.Job.FirstOrDefault Dim address As New Address() job.Addresses.Add(address) Dim contains1 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'True e.SaveChanges() Dim contains2 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'False 'The problem is that I can't remove it: Dim removed = job.Addresses.Remoeve(address) 'False End Using End Sub Note (I checked in the debugger visualizer) that the EntityCollection class stores its entities in HashSet so it has to do with the GetHashCode function, I want it to depend on the ID so entities are compared by their IDs. Please help me find what's wrong in the GetHashCode function (by ID) and what can I change to make it work. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Problem with custom Equality and GetHashCode in a mutable object

    - by Shimmy
    Hello! I am using Entity Framework in my application. I implemented with the partial class of an entity the IEquatable<T> interface: Partial Class Address : Implements IEquatable(Of Address) 'Other part generated Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Address) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Address).Equals If ReferenceEquals(Me, other) Then Return True Return AddressId = other.AddressId End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If obj Is Nothing Then Return MyBase.Equals(obj) If TypeOf obj Is Address Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Address)) Else Return False End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return AddressId.GetHashCode End Function End Class Now in my code I use it this way: Sub Main() Using e As New CompleteKitchenEntities Dim job = e.Job.FirstOrDefault Dim address As New Address() job.Addresses.Add(address) Dim contains1 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'True e.SaveChanges() Dim contains2 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'False 'The problem is that I can't remove it: Dim removed = job.Addresses.Remoeve(address) 'False End Using End Sub Note (I checked in the debugger visualizer) that the EntityCollection class stores its entities in HashSet so it has to do with the GetHashCode function, I want it to depend on the ID so entities are compared by their IDs. The problem is that when I hit save, the ID changes from 0 to its db value. So the question is how can I have an equatable object, being properly hashed. Please help me find what's wrong in the GetHashCode function (by ID) and what can I change to make it work. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • When To Use IEquatable And Why

    - by ChloeRadshaw
    I just dont understand this - What does IEuqtable buy you exactly?? The only reason I can see it being useful is when creating a generic type and forcing users to implement and write a good equals method. What am I missing

    Read the article

  • How to use Object.GetHashCode() on a type that overrides GetHashCode()

    - by Jimmy
    Hi, I have a class A that implements IEquatable<, using its fields (say, A.b and A.c) for implementing/overriding Equals() and overriding GetHashCode(), and everything works fine, 99% of the time. Class A is part of a hierarchy (class B, C) that all inherit from interface D; they can all be stored together in a dictionary Dictionary, thus it's convenient when they all carry their own default Equals()/GetHashCode(). However, while constructing A I sometime need to do some work to get the values for A.b and A.c; while that's happening, I want to store a reference to the instance that's being built. In that case, I don't want to use the default Equals()/GetHashCode() overrides provided by A. Thus, I was thinking of implementing a ReferenceEqualityComparer, that's meant to force the use of Object's Equals()/GetHashCode(): private class ReferenceEqualityComparer<T> : IEqualityComparer<T> { #region IEqualityComparer<T> Members public bool Equals(T x, T y) { return System.Object.ReferenceEquals(x, y); } public int GetHashCode(T obj) { // what goes here? I want to do something like System.Object.GetHashCode(obj); } #endregion } The question is, since A overrides Object.GetHashCode(), how can I (outside of A) call Object.GetHashCode() for an instance of A? One way of course would be for A to not implement IEquatable< and always supply an IEqualityComparer< to any dictionary that I create, but I'm hoping for a different answer. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Comparing two List<MyClass> in C#

    - by Matt
    I have a class called MyClass This class inherits IEquatable and implements equals the way I need it to. (Meaning: when I compare two MyClass tyupe objects individually in code, it works) I then create two List: var ListA = new List<MyClass>(); var ListB = new List<MyClass>(); // Add distinct objects that are equal to one another to // ListA and ListB in such a way that they are not added in the same order. When I go to compare ListA and ListB, should I get true? ListA.Equals(ListB)==true; //???

    Read the article

  • Does anyone know what happens if you do not implement iequtalable when using generic collections?

    - by ChloeRadshaw
    I asked a question here : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2476793/when-to-use-iequatable-and-why about using Iequatable. From the msdn: The IEquatable(T) interface is used by generic collection objects such as Dictionary(TKey, TValue), List(T), and LinkedList(T) when testing for equality in such methods as Contains, IndexOf, LastIndexOf, and Remove. If you dont implement that interface what exactly happens?? Exception / default object equals / ref equals?

    Read the article

  • C# Select clause returns system exception instead of relevant object

    - by Kashif
    I am trying to use the select clause to pick out an object which matches a specified name field from a database query as follows: objectQuery = from obj in objectList where obj.Equals(objectName) select obj; In the results view of my query, I get: base {System.SystemException} = {"Boolean Equals(System.Object)"} Where I should be expecting something like a Car, Make, or Model Would someone please explain what I am doing wrong here? The method in question can be seen here: // this function searches the database's table for a single object that matches the 'Name' property with 'objectName' public static T Read<T>(string objectName) where T : IEquatable<T> { using (ISession session = NHibernateHelper.OpenSession()) { IQueryable<T> objectList = session.Query<T>(); // pull (query) all the objects from the table in the database int count = objectList.Count(); // return the number of objects in the table // alternative: int count = makeList.Count<T>(); IQueryable<T> objectQuery = null; // create a reference for our queryable list of objects T foundObject = default(T); // create an object reference for our found object if (count > 0) { // give me all objects that have a name that matches 'objectName' and store them in 'objectQuery' objectQuery = from obj in objectList where obj.Equals(objectName) select obj; // make sure that 'objectQuery' has only one object in it try { foundObject = (T)objectQuery.Single(); } catch { return default(T); } // output some information to the console (output screen) Console.WriteLine("Read Make: " + foundObject.ToString()); } // pass the reference of the found object on to whoever asked for it return foundObject; } } Note that I am using the interface "IQuatable<T>" in my method descriptor. An example of the classes I am trying to pull from the database is: public class Make: IEquatable<Make> { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual IList<Model> Models { get; set; } public Make() { // this public no-argument constructor is required for NHibernate } public Make(string makeName) { this.Name = makeName; } public override string ToString() { return Name; } // Implementation of IEquatable<T> interface public virtual bool Equals(Make make) { if (this.Id == make.Id) { return true; } else { return false; } } // Implementation of IEquatable<T> interface public virtual bool Equals(String name) { if (this.Name.Equals(name)) { return true; } else { return false; } } } And the interface is described simply as: public interface IEquatable<T> { bool Equals(T obj); }

    Read the article

  • Should I forward the a call to .Equals onto .Equals<T>?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    So, I've got you bog standard c# object, overriding Equalsand implementing IEquatable public override int GetHashCode() { return _name.GetHashCode(); } public override bool Equals(object obj) { return Equals(obj as Tag) } #region IEquatable<Tag> Members public bool Equals(Tag other) { if (other == null) return false; else return _name == other._name; } #endregion Now, for some reason, I used to think that forwarding the calls from Equals into Equals was bad, no idea why, perhaps I read it a long time ago, anyway I'd write separate (but logically same) code for each method. Now I think forwarding Equals to Equals is okay, for obvious reasons, but for the life me I can't remember why I thought it wasn't before. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How can I have a serializable struct that wraps it's self as an int32 implicitly? in C#?

    - by firoso
    Long story short, I have a struct (see below) that contains exactly one field: private int value; I've also implemented implicit conversion operators: public static implicit operator int(Outlet val) { return val.value; } public static implicit operator Outlet(int val) { return new Outlet(val); } I've implemented all of the following : IComparable, IComparable<Cart>, IComparable<int>, IConvertible, IEquatable<Cart>, IEquatable<int>, IFormattable I'm at a point where I really have no clue why, but whenever I serialize this object, I get no value. For instance, with XmlSerialization: <Outlet /> Also, I'm not solely concerned about XmlSerialization, I'm concerned about ALL serialization (binary for instance) How can I ensure that this serializes properly? NOTE: I did this because mapping an int,int dictionary seemed rather poorly typed to me when explicit objects with validation behavior were desired.

    Read the article

  • LINQ: Enhancing Distinct With The SelectorEqualityComparer

    - by Paulo Morgado
    On my last post, I introduced the PredicateEqualityComparer and a Distinct extension method that receives a predicate to internally create a PredicateEqualityComparer to filter elements. Using the predicate, greatly improves readability, conciseness and expressiveness of the queries, but it can be even better. Most of the times, we don’t want to provide a comparison method but just to extract the comaprison key for the elements. So, I developed a SelectorEqualityComparer that takes a method that extracts the key value for each element. Something like this: public class SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey> : EqualityComparer<TSource> where Tkey : IEquatable<Tkey> { private Func<TSource, Tkey> selector; public SelectorEqualityComparer(Func<TSource, Tkey> selector) : base() { this.selector = selector; } public override bool Equals(TSource x, TSource y) { Tkey xKey = this.GetKey(x); Tkey yKey = this.GetKey(y); if (xKey != null) { return ((yKey != null) && xKey.Equals(yKey)); } return (yKey == null); } public override int GetHashCode(TSource obj) { Tkey key = this.GetKey(obj); return (key == null) ? 0 : key.GetHashCode(); } public override bool Equals(object obj) { SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey> comparer = obj as SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey>; return (comparer != null); } public override int GetHashCode() { return base.GetType().Name.GetHashCode(); } private Tkey GetKey(TSource obj) { return (obj == null) ? (Tkey)(object)null : this.selector(obj); } } Now I can write code like this: .Distinct(new SelectorEqualityComparer<Source, Key>(x => x.Field)) And, for improved readability, conciseness and expressiveness and support for anonymous types the corresponding Distinct extension method: public static IEnumerable<TSource> Distinct<TSource, TKey>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> selector) where TKey : IEquatable<TKey> { return source.Distinct(new SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, TKey>(selector)); } And the query is now written like this: .Distinct(x => x.Field) For most usages, it’s simpler than using a predicate.

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Tuples and Tuple Factory Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can really help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain.  This week, we look at the System.Tuple class and the handy factory methods for creating a Tuple by inferring the types. What is a Tuple? The System.Tuple is a class that tends to inspire a reaction in one of two ways: love or hate.  Simply put, a Tuple is a data structure that holds a specific number of items of a specific type in a specific order.  That is, a Tuple<int, string, int> is a tuple that contains exactly three items: an int, followed by a string, followed by an int.  The sequence is important not only to distinguish between two members of the tuple with the same type, but also for comparisons between tuples.  Some people tend to love tuples because they give you a quick way to combine multiple values into one result.  This can be handy for returning more than one value from a method (without using out or ref parameters), or for creating a compound key to a Dictionary, or any other purpose you can think of.  They can be especially handy when passing a series of items into a call that only takes one object parameter, such as passing an argument to a thread's startup routine.  In these cases, you do not need to define a class, simply create a tuple containing the types you wish to return, and you are ready to go? On the other hand, there are some people who see tuples as a crutch in object-oriented design.  They may view the tuple as a very watered down class with very little inherent semantic meaning.  As an example, what if you saw this in a piece of code: 1: var x = new Tuple<int, int>(2, 5); What are the contents of this tuple?  If the tuple isn't named appropriately, and if the contents of each member are not self evident from the type this can be a confusing question.  The people who tend to be against tuples would rather you explicitly code a class to contain the values, such as: 1: public sealed class RetrySettings 2: { 3: public int TimeoutSeconds { get; set; } 4: public int MaxRetries { get; set; } 5: } Here, the meaning of each int in the class is much more clear, but it's a bit more work to create the class and can clutter a solution with extra classes. So, what's the correct way to go?  That's a tough call.  You will have people who will argue quite well for one or the other.  For me, I consider the Tuple to be a tool to make it easy to collect values together easily.  There are times when I just need to combine items for a key or a result, in which case the tuple is short lived and so the meaning isn't easily lost and I feel this is a good compromise.  If the scope of the collection of items, though, is more application-wide I tend to favor creating a full class. Finally, it should be noted that tuples are immutable.  That means they are assigned a value at construction, and that value cannot be changed.  Now, of course if the tuple contains an item of a reference type, this means that the reference is immutable and not the item referred to. Tuples from 1 to N Tuples come in all sizes, you can have as few as one element in your tuple, or as many as you like.  However, since C# generics can't have an infinite generic type parameter list, any items after 7 have to be collapsed into another tuple, as we'll show shortly. So when you declare your tuple from sizes 1 (a 1-tuple or singleton) to 7 (a 7-tuple or septuple), simply include the appropriate number of type arguments: 1: // a singleton tuple of integer 2: Tuple<int> x; 3:  4: // or more 5: Tuple<int, double> y; 6:  7: // up to seven 8: Tuple<int, double, char, double, int, string, uint> z; Anything eight and above, and we have to nest tuples inside of tuples.  The last element of the 8-tuple is the generic type parameter Rest, this is special in that the Tuple checks to make sure at runtime that the type is a Tuple.  This means that a simple 8-tuple must nest a singleton tuple (one of the good uses for a singleton tuple, by the way) for the Rest property. 1: // an 8-tuple 2: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, double, char, Tuple<string>> t8; 3:  4: // an 9-tuple 5: Tuple<int, int, int, int, double, int, char, Tuple<string, DateTime>> t9; 6:  7: // a 16-tuple 8: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int,int>>> t14; Notice that on the 14-tuple we had to have a nested tuple in the nested tuple.  Since the tuple can only support up to seven items, and then a rest element, that means that if the nested tuple needs more than seven items you must nest in it as well.  Constructing tuples Constructing tuples is just as straightforward as declaring them.  That said, you have two distinct ways to do it.  The first is to construct the tuple explicitly yourself: 1: var t3 = new Tuple<int, string, double>(1, "Hello", 3.1415927); This creates a triple that has an int, string, and double and assigns the values 1, "Hello", and 3.1415927 respectively.  Make sure the order of the arguments supplied matches the order of the types!  Also notice that we can't half-assign a tuple or create a default tuple.  Tuples are immutable (you can't change the values once constructed), so thus you must provide all values at construction time. Another way to easily create tuples is to do it implicitly using the System.Tuple static class's Create() factory methods.  These methods (much like C++'s std::make_pair method) will infer the types from the method call so you don't have to type them in.  This can dramatically reduce the amount of typing required especially for complex tuples! 1: // this 4-tuple is typed Tuple<int, double, string, char> 2: var t4 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.1415927, "Love", 'X'); Notice how much easier it is to use the factory methods and infer the types?  This can cut down on typing quite a bit when constructing tuples.  The Create() factory method can construct from a 1-tuple (singleton) to an 8-tuple (octuple), which of course will be a octuple where the last item is a singleton as we described before in nested tuples. Accessing tuple members Accessing a tuple's members is simplicity itself… mostly.  The properties for accessing up to the first seven items are Item1, Item2, …, Item7.  If you have an octuple or beyond, the final property is Rest which will give you the nested tuple which you can then access in a similar matter.  Once again, keep in mind that these are read-only properties and cannot be changed. 1: // for septuples and below, use the Item properties 2: var t1 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.14); 3:  4: Console.WriteLine("First item is {0} and second is {1}", 5: t1.Item1, t1.Item2); 6:  7: // for octuples and above, use Rest to retrieve nested tuple 8: var t9 = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, 9: Tuple<int, int>>(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,Tuple.Create(8,9)); 10:  11: Console.WriteLine("The 8th item is {0}", t9.Rest.Item1); Tuples are IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable Most of you know about IComparable and IEquatable, what you may not know is that there are two sister interfaces to these that were added in .NET 4.0 to help support tuples.  These IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable make it easy to compare two tuples for equality and ordering.  This is invaluable for sorting, and makes it easy to use tuples as a compound-key to a dictionary (one of my favorite uses)! Why is this so important?  Remember when we said that some folks think tuples are too generic and you should define a custom class?  This is all well and good, but if you want to design a custom class that can automatically order itself based on its members and build a hash code for itself based on its members, it is no longer a trivial task!  Thankfully the tuple does this all for you through the explicit implementations of these interfaces. For equality, two tuples are equal if all elements are equal between the two tuples, that is if t1.Item1 == t2.Item1 and t1.Item2 == t2.Item2, and so on.  For ordering, it's a little more complex in that it compares the two tuples one at a time starting at Item1, and sees which one has a smaller Item1.  If one has a smaller Item1, it is the smaller tuple.  However if both Item1 are the same, it compares Item2 and so on. For example: 1: var t1 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 2: var t2 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 3: var t3 = Tuple.Create(2, 2.72, "Bye"); 4:  5: // true, t1 == t2 because all items are == 6: Console.WriteLine("t1 == t2 : " + t1.Equals(t2)); 7:  8: // false, t1 != t2 because at least one item different 9: Console.WriteLine("t2 == t2 : " + t2.Equals(t3)); The actual implementation of IComparable, IEquatable, IStructuralComparable, and IStructuralEquatable is explicit, so if you want to invoke the methods defined there you'll have to manually cast to the appropriate interface: 1: // true because t1.Item1 < t3.Item1, if had been same would check Item2 and so on 2: Console.WriteLine("t1 < t3 : " + (((IComparable)t1).CompareTo(t3) < 0)); So, as I mentioned, the fact that tuples are automatically equatable and comparable (provided the types you use define equality and comparability as needed) means that we can use tuples for compound keys in hashing and ordering containers like Dictionary and SortedList: 1: var tupleDict = new Dictionary<Tuple<int, double, string>, string>(); 2:  3: tupleDict.Add(t1, "First tuple"); 4: tupleDict.Add(t2, "Second tuple"); 5: tupleDict.Add(t3, "Third tuple"); Because IEquatable defines GetHashCode(), and Tuple's IStructuralEquatable implementation creates this hash code by combining the hash codes of the members, this makes using the tuple as a complex key quite easy!  For example, let's say you are creating account charts for a financial application, and you want to cache those charts in a Dictionary based on the account number and the number of days of chart data (for example, a 1 day chart, 1 week chart, etc): 1: // the account number (string) and number of days (int) are key to get cached chart 2: var chartCache = new Dictionary<Tuple<string, int>, IChart>(); Summary The System.Tuple, like any tool, is best used where it will achieve a greater benefit.  I wouldn't advise overusing them, on objects with a large scope or it can become difficult to maintain.  However, when used properly in a well defined scope they can make your code cleaner and easier to maintain by removing the need for extraneous POCOs and custom property hashing and ordering. They are especially useful in defining compound keys to IDictionary implementations and for returning multiple values from methods, or passing multiple values to a single object parameter. Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Tuple,Little Wonders

    Read the article

  • Can't seem to get .Union to work (merging 2 array's together, exclude duplicates)

    - by D. Veloper
    I want to combine two array's, excluding duplicates. I am using a custom class: public class ArcContact : IEquatable<ArcContact> { public String Text; public Boolean Equals(ArcContact other) { if (Object.ReferenceEquals(other, null)) return false; if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true; return Text.Equals(other.Text); } public override Int32 GetHashCode() { return Text == null ? 0 : Text.GetHashCode(); } } I implemented and the needed IEquatable interface as mentioned in this msdn section. I only want to check the Text property of the ArcContact class and make sure an Array of ArcContact have an unique Text. Here I pasted the code that I use, as you can see I have method with two parameters, array's to combine and below that the code I got from the previous mentioned msdn section. internal static class ArcBizz { internal static ArcContact[] MergeDuplicateContacts(ArcContact[] contacts1, ArcContact[] contacts2) { return (ArcContact[])contacts1.Union(contacts2); } internal static IEnumerable<T> Union<T>(this IEnumerable<T> a, IEnumerable<T> b); } What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to get MinValue/MaxValue of a certain ValueType via reflection?

    - by marco.ragogna
    I need to this at runtime. I checked using Reflector and value types line like Int16, for example, should contain <Serializable, StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential), ComVisible(True)> _ Public Structure Int16 Implements IComparable, IFormattable, IConvertible, IComparable(Of Short), IEquatable(Of Short) Public Const MaxValue As Short = &H7FFF Public Const MinValue As Short = -32768 End Structure But the following code is not working Dim dummyValue = Activator.CreateInstance(GetType(UInt16)) Dim minValue As IComparable = DirectCast(dummyValue.GetType.GetProperty("MinValue").GetValue(dummyValue, Nothing), IComparable) any idea how to solve?

    Read the article

  • What are the best practices for implementing the == operator for a class in C#?

    - by remio
    While implementing an == operator, I have the feeling that I am missing some essential points. Hence, I am searching some best practices around that. Here are some related questions I am thinking about: How to cleanly handle the reference comparison? Should it be implemented through a IEquatable<T>-like interface? Or overriding object.Equals? And what about the != operator? (this list might not be exhaustive).

    Read the article

  • LINQ – SequenceEqual() method

    - by nmarun
    I have been looking at LINQ extension methods and have blogged about what I learned from them in my blog space. Next in line is the SequenceEqual() method. Here’s the description about this method: “Determines whether two sequences are equal by comparing the elements by using the default equality comparer for their type.” Let’s play with some code: 1: int[] numbers = { 5, 4, 1, 3, 9, 8, 6, 7, 2, 0 }; 2: // int[] numbersCopy = numbers; 3: int[] numbersCopy = { 5, 4, 1, 3, 9, 8, 6, 7, 2, 0 }; 4:  5: Console.WriteLine(numbers.SequenceEqual(numbersCopy)); This gives an output of ‘True’ – basically compares each of the elements in the two arrays and returns true in this case. The result is same even if you uncomment line 2 and comment line 3 (I didn’t need to say that now did I?). So then what happens for custom types? For this, I created a Product class with the following definition: 1: class Product 2: { 3: public int ProductId { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public string Category { get; set; } 6: public DateTime MfgDate { get; set; } 7: public Status Status { get; set; } 8: } 9:  10: public enum Status 11: { 12: Active = 1, 13: InActive = 2, 14: OffShelf = 3, 15: } In my calling code, I’m just adding a few product items: 1: private static List<Product> GetProducts() 2: { 3: return new List<Product> 4: { 5: new Product 6: { 7: ProductId = 1, 8: Name = "Laptop", 9: Category = "Computer", 10: MfgDate = new DateTime(2003, 4, 3), 11: Status = Status.Active, 12: }, 13: new Product 14: { 15: ProductId = 2, 16: Name = "Compact Disc", 17: Category = "Water Sport", 18: MfgDate = new DateTime(2009, 12, 3), 19: Status = Status.InActive, 20: }, 21: new Product 22: { 23: ProductId = 3, 24: Name = "Floppy", 25: Category = "Computer", 26: MfgDate = new DateTime(1993, 3, 7), 27: Status = Status.OffShelf, 28: }, 29: }; 30: } Now for the actual check: 1: List<Product> products1 = GetProducts(); 2: List<Product> products2 = GetProducts(); 3:  4: Console.WriteLine(products1.SequenceEqual(products2)); This one returns ‘False’ and the reason is simple – this one checks for reference equality and the products in the both the lists get different ‘memory addresses’ (sounds like I’m talking in ‘C’). In order to modify this behavior and return a ‘True’ result, we need to modify the Product class as follows: 1: class Product : IEquatable<Product> 2: { 3: public int ProductId { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public string Category { get; set; } 6: public DateTime MfgDate { get; set; } 7: public Status Status { get; set; } 8:  9: public override bool Equals(object obj) 10: { 11: return Equals(obj as Product); 12: } 13:  14: public bool Equals(Product other) 15: { 16: //Check whether the compared object is null. 17: if (ReferenceEquals(other, null)) return false; 18:  19: //Check whether the compared object references the same data. 20: if (ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true; 21:  22: //Check whether the products' properties are equal. 23: return ProductId.Equals(other.ProductId) 24: && Name.Equals(other.Name) 25: && Category.Equals(other.Category) 26: && MfgDate.Equals(other.MfgDate) 27: && Status.Equals(other.Status); 28: } 29:  30: // If Equals() returns true for a pair of objects 31: // then GetHashCode() must return the same value for these objects. 32: // read why in the following articles: 33: // http://geekswithblogs.net/akraus1/archive/2010/02/28/138234.aspx 34: // http://stackoverflow.com/questions/371328/why-is-it-important-to-override-gethashcode-when-equals-method-is-overriden-in-c 35: public override int GetHashCode() 36: { 37: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 38: int hashProductId = ProductId.GetHashCode(); 39:  40: //Get hash code for the Name field if it is not null. 41: int hashName = Name == null ? 0 : Name.GetHashCode(); 42:  43: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 44: int hashCategory = Category.GetHashCode(); 45:  46: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 47: int hashMfgDate = MfgDate.GetHashCode(); 48:  49: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 50: int hashStatus = Status.GetHashCode(); 51: //Calculate the hash code for the product. 52: return hashProductId ^ hashName ^ hashCategory & hashMfgDate & hashStatus; 53: } 54:  55: public static bool operator ==(Product a, Product b) 56: { 57: // Enable a == b for null references to return the right value 58: if (ReferenceEquals(a, b)) 59: { 60: return true; 61: } 62: // If one is null and the other not. Remember a==null will lead to Stackoverflow! 63: if (ReferenceEquals(a, null)) 64: { 65: return false; 66: } 67: return a.Equals((object)b); 68: } 69:  70: public static bool operator !=(Product a, Product b) 71: { 72: return !(a == b); 73: } 74: } Now THAT kinda looks overwhelming. But lets take one simple step at a time. Ok first thing you’ve noticed is that the class implements IEquatable<Product> interface – the key step towards achieving our goal. This interface provides us with an ‘Equals’ method to perform the test for equality with another Product object, in this case. This method is called in the following situations: when you do a ProductInstance.Equals(AnotherProductInstance) and when you perform actions like Contains<T>, IndexOf() or Remove() on your collection Coming to the Equals method defined line 14 onwards. The two ‘if’ blocks check for null and referential equality using the ReferenceEquals() method defined in the Object class. Line 23 is where I’m doing the actual check on the properties of the Product instances. This is what returns the ‘True’ for us when we run the application. I have also overridden the Object.Equals() method which calls the Equals() method of the interface. One thing to remember is that anytime you override the Equals() method, its’ a good practice to override the GetHashCode() method and overload the ‘==’ and the ‘!=’ operators. For detailed information on this, please read this and this. Since we’ve overloaded the operators as well, we get ‘True’ when we do actions like: 1: Console.WriteLine(products1.Contains(products2[0])); 2: Console.WriteLine(products1[0] == products2[0]); This completes the full circle on the SequenceEqual() method. See the code used in the article here.

    Read the article

  • Rendering a random generated maze in WinForms.NET

    - by Claus Jørgensen
    Hi I'm trying to create a maze-generator, and for this I have implemented the Randomized Prim's Algorithm in C#. However, the result of the generation is invalid. I can't figure out if it's my rendering, or the implementation that's invalid. So for starters, I'd like to have someone take a look at the implementation: maze is a matrix of cells. var cell = maze[0, 0]; cell.Connected = true; var walls = new HashSet<MazeWall>(cell.Walls); while (walls.Count > 0) { var randomWall = walls.GetRandom(); var randomCell = randomWall.A.Connected ? randomWall.B : randomWall.A; if (!randomCell.Connected) { randomWall.IsPassage = true; randomCell.Connected = true; foreach (var wall in randomCell.Walls) walls.Add(wall); } walls.Remove(randomWall); } Here's a example on the rendered result: Edit Ok, lets have a look at the rendering part then: private void MazePanel_Paint(object sender, PaintEventArgs e) { int size = 20; int cellSize = 10; MazeCell[,] maze = RandomizedPrimsGenerator.Generate(size); mazePanel.Size = new Size( size * cellSize + 1, size * cellSize + 1 ); e.Graphics.DrawRectangle(Pens.Blue, 0, 0, size * cellSize, size * cellSize ); for (int y = 0; y < size; y++) for (int x = 0; x < size; x++) { foreach(var wall in maze[x, y].Walls.Where(w => !w.IsPassage)) { if (wall.Direction == MazeWallOrientation.Horisontal) { e.Graphics.DrawLine(Pens.Blue, x * cellSize, y * cellSize, x * cellSize + cellSize, y * cellSize ); } else { e.Graphics.DrawLine(Pens.Blue, x * cellSize, y * cellSize, x * cellSize, y * cellSize + cellSize ); } } } } And I guess, to understand this we need to see the MazeCell and MazeWall class: namespace MazeGenerator.Maze { class MazeCell { public int Column { get; set; } public int Row { get; set; } public bool Connected { get; set; } private List<MazeWall> walls = new List<MazeWall>(); public List<MazeWall> Walls { get { return walls; } set { walls = value; } } public MazeCell() { this.Connected = false; } public void AddWall(MazeCell b) { walls.Add(new MazeWall(this, b)); } } enum MazeWallOrientation { Horisontal, Vertical, Undefined } class MazeWall : IEquatable<MazeWall> { public IEnumerable<MazeCell> Cells { get { yield return CellA; yield return CellB; } } public MazeCell CellA { get; set; } public MazeCell CellB { get; set; } public bool IsPassage { get; set; } public MazeWallOrientation Direction { get { if (CellA.Column == CellB.Column) { return MazeWallOrientation.Horisontal; } else if (CellA.Row == CellB.Row) { return MazeWallOrientation.Vertical; } else { return MazeWallOrientation.Undefined; } } } public MazeWall(MazeCell a, MazeCell b) { this.CellA = a; this.CellB = b; a.Walls.Add(this); b.Walls.Add(this); IsPassage = false; } #region IEquatable<MazeWall> Members public bool Equals(MazeWall other) { return (this.CellA == other.CellA) && (this.CellB == other.CellB); } #endregion } }

    Read the article

  • Using LINQ Distinct: With an Example on ASP.NET MVC SelectListItem

    - by Joe Mayo
    One of the things that might be surprising in the LINQ Distinct standard query operator is that it doesn’t automatically work properly on custom classes. There are reasons for this, which I’ll explain shortly. The example I’ll use in this post focuses on pulling a unique list of names to load into a drop-down list. I’ll explain the sample application, show you typical first shot at Distinct, explain why it won’t work as you expect, and then demonstrate a solution to make Distinct work with any custom class. The technologies I’m using are  LINQ to Twitter, LINQ to Objects, Telerik Extensions for ASP.NET MVC, ASP.NET MVC 2, and Visual Studio 2010. The function of the example program is to show a list of people that I follow.  In Twitter API vernacular, these people are called “Friends”; though I’ve never met most of them in real life. This is part of the ubiquitous language of social networking, and Twitter in particular, so you’ll see my objects named accordingly. Where Distinct comes into play is because I want to have a drop-down list with the names of the friends appearing in the list. Some friends are quite verbose, which means I can’t just extract names from each tweet and populate the drop-down; otherwise, I would end up with many duplicate names. Therefore, Distinct is the appropriate operator to eliminate the extra entries from my friends who tend to be enthusiastic tweeters. The sample doesn’t do anything with the drop-down list and I leave that up to imagination for what it’s practical purpose could be; perhaps a filter for the list if I only want to see a certain person’s tweets or maybe a quick list that I plan to combine with a TextBox and Button to reply to a friend. When the program runs, you’ll need to authenticate with Twitter, because I’m using OAuth (DotNetOpenAuth), for authentication, and then you’ll see the drop-down list of names above the grid with the most recent tweets from friends. Here’s what the application looks like when it runs: As you can see, there is a drop-down list above the grid. The drop-down list is where most of the focus of this article will be. There is some description of the code before we talk about the Distinct operator, but we’ll get there soon. This is an ASP.NET MVC2 application, written with VS 2010. Here’s the View that produces this screen: <%@ Page Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<TwitterFriendsViewModel>" %> <%@ Import Namespace="DistinctSelectList.Models" %> <asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="TitleContent" runat="server">     Home Page </asp:Content><asp:Content ID="Content2" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server">     <fieldset>         <legend>Twitter Friends</legend>         <div>             <%= Html.DropDownListFor(                     twendVM => twendVM.FriendNames,                     Model.FriendNames,                     "<All Friends>") %>         </div>         <div>             <% Html.Telerik().Grid<TweetViewModel>(Model.Tweets)                    .Name("TwitterFriendsGrid")                    .Columns(cols =>                     {                         cols.Template(col =>                             { %>                                 <img src="<%= col.ImageUrl %>"                                      alt="<%= col.ScreenName %>" />                         <% });                         cols.Bound(col => col.ScreenName);                         cols.Bound(col => col.Tweet);                     })                    .Render(); %>         </div>     </fieldset> </asp:Content> As shown above, the Grid is from Telerik’s Extensions for ASP.NET MVC. The first column is a template that renders the user’s Avatar from a URL provided by the Twitter query. Both the Grid and DropDownListFor display properties that are collections from a TwitterFriendsViewModel class, shown below: using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Web.Mvc; namespace DistinctSelectList.Models { /// /// For finding friend info on screen /// public class TwitterFriendsViewModel { /// /// Display names of friends in drop-down list /// public List FriendNames { get; set; } /// /// Display tweets in grid /// public List Tweets { get; set; } } } I created the TwitterFreindsViewModel. The two Lists are what the View consumes to populate the DropDownListFor and Grid. Notice that FriendNames is a List of SelectListItem, which is an MVC class. Another custom class I created is the TweetViewModel (the type of the Tweets List), shown below: namespace DistinctSelectList.Models { /// /// Info on friend tweets /// public class TweetViewModel { /// /// User's avatar /// public string ImageUrl { get; set; } /// /// User's Twitter name /// public string ScreenName { get; set; } /// /// Text containing user's tweet /// public string Tweet { get; set; } } } The initial Twitter query returns much more information than we need for our purposes and this a special class for displaying info in the View.  Now you know about the View and how it’s constructed. Let’s look at the controller next. The controller for this demo performs authentication, data retrieval, data manipulation, and view selection. I’ll skip the description of the authentication because it’s a normal part of using OAuth with LINQ to Twitter. Instead, we’ll drill down and focus on the Distinct operator. However, I’ll show you the entire controller, below,  so that you can see how it all fits together: using System.Linq; using System.Web.Mvc; using DistinctSelectList.Models; using LinqToTwitter; namespace DistinctSelectList.Controllers { [HandleError] public class HomeController : Controller { private MvcOAuthAuthorization auth; private TwitterContext twitterCtx; /// /// Display a list of friends current tweets /// /// public ActionResult Index() { auth = new MvcOAuthAuthorization(InMemoryTokenManager.Instance, InMemoryTokenManager.AccessToken); string accessToken = auth.CompleteAuthorize(); if (accessToken != null) { InMemoryTokenManager.AccessToken = accessToken; } if (auth.CachedCredentialsAvailable) { auth.SignOn(); } else { return auth.BeginAuthorize(); } twitterCtx = new TwitterContext(auth); var friendTweets = (from tweet in twitterCtx.Status where tweet.Type == StatusType.Friends select new TweetViewModel { ImageUrl = tweet.User.ProfileImageUrl, ScreenName = tweet.User.Identifier.ScreenName, Tweet = tweet.Text }) .ToList(); var friendNames = (from tweet in friendTweets select new SelectListItem { Text = tweet.ScreenName, Value = tweet.ScreenName }) .Distinct() .ToList(); var twendsVM = new TwitterFriendsViewModel { Tweets = friendTweets, FriendNames = friendNames }; return View(twendsVM); } public ActionResult About() { return View(); } } } The important part of the listing above are the LINQ to Twitter queries for friendTweets and friendNames. Both of these results are used in the subsequent population of the twendsVM instance that is passed to the view. Let’s dissect these two statements for clarification and focus on what is happening with Distinct. The query for friendTweets gets a list of the 20 most recent tweets (as specified by the Twitter API for friend queries) and performs a projection into the custom TweetViewModel class, repeated below for your convenience: var friendTweets = (from tweet in twitterCtx.Status where tweet.Type == StatusType.Friends select new TweetViewModel { ImageUrl = tweet.User.ProfileImageUrl, ScreenName = tweet.User.Identifier.ScreenName, Tweet = tweet.Text }) .ToList(); The LINQ to Twitter query above simplifies what we need to work with in the View and the reduces the amount of information we have to look at in subsequent queries. Given the friendTweets above, the next query performs another projection into an MVC SelectListItem, which is required for binding to the DropDownList.  This brings us to the focus of this blog post, writing a correct query that uses the Distinct operator. The query below uses LINQ to Objects, querying the friendTweets collection to get friendNames: var friendNames = (from tweet in friendTweets select new SelectListItem { Text = tweet.ScreenName, Value = tweet.ScreenName }) .Distinct() .ToList(); The above implementation of Distinct seems normal, but it is deceptively incorrect. After running the query above, by executing the application, you’ll notice that the drop-down list contains many duplicates.  This will send you back to the code scratching your head, but there’s a reason why this happens. To understand the problem, we must examine how Distinct works in LINQ to Objects. Distinct has two overloads: one without parameters, as shown above, and another that takes a parameter of type IEqualityComparer<T>.  In the case above, no parameters, Distinct will call EqualityComparer<T>.Default behind the scenes to make comparisons as it iterates through the list. You don’t have problems with the built-in types, such as string, int, DateTime, etc, because they all implement IEquatable<T>. However, many .NET Framework classes, such as SelectListItem, don’t implement IEquatable<T>. So, what happens is that EqualityComparer<T>.Default results in a call to Object.Equals, which performs reference equality on reference type objects.  You don’t have this problem with value types because the default implementation of Object.Equals is bitwise equality. However, most of your projections that use Distinct are on classes, just like the SelectListItem used in this demo application. So, the reason why Distinct didn’t produce the results we wanted was because we used a type that doesn’t define its own equality and Distinct used the default reference equality. This resulted in all objects being included in the results because they are all separate instances in memory with unique references. As you might have guessed, the solution to the problem is to use the second overload of Distinct that accepts an IEqualityComparer<T> instance. If you were projecting into your own custom type, you could make that type implement IEqualityComparer<T>, but SelectListItem belongs to the .NET Framework Class Library.  Therefore, the solution is to create a custom type to implement IEqualityComparer<T>, as in the SelectListItemComparer class, shown below: using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Web.Mvc; namespace DistinctSelectList.Models { public class SelectListItemComparer : EqualityComparer { public override bool Equals(SelectListItem x, SelectListItem y) { return x.Value.Equals(y.Value); } public override int GetHashCode(SelectListItem obj) { return obj.Value.GetHashCode(); } } } The SelectListItemComparer class above doesn’t implement IEqualityComparer<SelectListItem>, but rather derives from EqualityComparer<SelectListItem>. Microsoft recommends this approach for consistency with the behavior of generic collection classes. However, if your custom type already derives from a base class, go ahead and implement IEqualityComparer<T>, which will still work. EqualityComparer is an abstract class, that implements IEqualityComparer<T> with Equals and GetHashCode abstract methods. For the purposes of this application, the SelectListItem.Value property is sufficient to determine if two items are equal.   Since SelectListItem.Value is type string, the code delegates equality to the string class. The code also delegates the GetHashCode operation to the string class.You might have other criteria in your own object and would need to define what it means for your object to be equal. Now that we have an IEqualityComparer<SelectListItem>, let’s fix the problem. The code below modifies the query where we want distinct values: var friendNames = (from tweet in friendTweets select new SelectListItem { Text = tweet.ScreenName, Value = tweet.ScreenName }) .Distinct(new SelectListItemComparer()) .ToList(); Notice how the code above passes a new instance of SelectListItemComparer as the parameter to the Distinct operator. Now, when you run the application, the drop-down list will behave as you expect, showing only a unique set of names. In addition to Distinct, other LINQ Standard Query Operators have overloads that accept IEqualityComparer<T>’s, You can use the same techniques as shown here, with SelectListItemComparer, with those other operators as well. Now you know how to resolve problems with getting Distinct to work properly and also have a way to fix problems with other operators that require equality comparisons. @JoeMayo

    Read the article

  • Overriding GetHashCode in a mutable struct - What NOT to do?

    - by Kyle Baran
    I am using the XNA Framework to make a learning project. It has a Point struct which exposes an X and Y value; for the purpose of optimization, it breaks the rules for proper struct design, since its a mutable struct. As Marc Gravell, John Skeet, and Eric Lippert point out in their respective posts about GetHashCode() (which Point overrides), this is a rather bad thing, since if an object's values change while its contained in a hashmap (ie, LINQ queries), it can become "lost". However, I am making my own Point3D struct, following the design of Point as a guideline. Thus, it too is a mutable struct which overrides GetHashCode(). The only difference is that mine exposes and int for X, Y, and Z values, but is fundamentally the same. The signatures are below: public struct Point3D : IEquatable<Point3D> { public int X; public int Y; public int Z; public static bool operator !=(Point3D a, Point3D b) { } public static bool operator ==(Point3D a, Point3D b) { } public Point3D Zero { get; } public override int GetHashCode() { } public override bool Equals(object obj) { } public bool Equals(Point3D other) { } public override string ToString() { } } I have tried to break my struct in the way they describe, namely by storing it in a List<Point3D>, as well as changing the value via a method using ref, but I did not encounter they behavior they warn about (maybe a pointer might allow me to break it?). Am I being too cautious in my approach, or should I be okay to use it as is?

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >