NeinLinq provides helpful extensions for using LINQ providers such as Entity Framework that support only a minor subset of .NET functions, reusing functions, rewriting queries, even making them null-safe, and building dynamic queries using translatable predicates and selectors.
To support different LINQ implementations, the following flavours are available. Choose at least one.
Use NeinLinq for plain LINQ queries:
PM> Install-Package NeinLinqUse NeinLinq.Async for async LINQ queries:
PM> Install-Package NeinLinq.AsyncUse NeinLinq.EntityFramework for Entity Framework 6 LINQ queries:
PM> Install-Package NeinLinq.EntityFrameworkUse NeinLinq.EntityFrameworkCore for Entity Framework Core LINQ queries:
PM> Install-Package NeinLinq.EntityFrameworkCoreNote: the extension methods described below have different names depending on the chosen package above, in order to avoid some conflicts! For example there are:
-
ToInjectable(NeinLinq) -
ToAsyncInjectable(NeinLinq.Async) -
ToDbInjectable(NeinLinq.EntityFramework) -
ToEntityInjectable(NeinLinq.EntityFrameworkCore)
Usage of specific flavors is encouraged for EF6 / EFCore (otherwise async queries won't work).
New: with Version 5.1.0 the package NeinLinq.EntityFrameworkCore introduced an explicit DbContext extension for enabling Lambda injection globally:
services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(options =>
options.UseSqlOrTheLike("...").WithLambdaInjection());Note: the call to WithLambdaInjection needs to happen after the call to UseSqlOrTheLike!
Many LINQ providers can only support a very minor subset of .NET functionality, they even cannot support our own "functions". Say, we implement a simple method LimitText and use it within an ordinary LINQ query, which will get translated to SQL through Entity Framework...
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.String LimitText(System.String, Int32)' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
This is what we get; in fact, it's really annoying. We have to scatter our logic between code, that will be translated by any LINQ query provider, and code, that won't. It gets even worse: if some logic is "translatable", which is good, we have to copy and paste! Consolidating the code within an ordinary function does not work since the provider is unable to translate this simple method call. Meh.
Let us introduce "lambda injection":
[InjectLambda]
public static string LimitText(this string value, int maxLength)
{
if (value != null && value.Length > maxLength)
return value.Substring(0, maxLength);
return value;
}
public static Expression<Func<string, int, string>> LimitText()
{
return (v, l) => v != null && v.Length > l ? v.Substring(0, l) : v;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
from d in data.ToInjectable()
select new
{
Id = d.Id,
Value = d.Name.LimitText(10)
}If a query is marked as "injectable" (ToInjectable()) and a function used within this query is marked as "inject here" ([InjectLambda]), the rewrite engine of NeinLinq replaces the method call with the matching lambda expression, which can get translate to SQL or whatever. Thus, we are able to encapsulate unsupported .NET functionality and even create our own. Yay.
[InjectLambda]
public static bool Like(this string value, string likePattern)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public static Expression<Func<string, string, bool>> Like()
{
return (v, p) => SqlFunctions.PatIndex(p, v) > 0;
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
from d in data.ToInjectable()
where d.Name.Like("%na_f%")
select ...This is an example of how we can abstract the SqlFunctions class of Entity Framework to use a (hopefully) nicer Like extension method within our query code -- PatIndex is likely used to simulate a SQL LIKE statement, why not make it so? We can actually implement the "ordinary" method with the help of regular expressions to run our code without touching SqlFunctions too...
New: with Version 7.0.0 NeinLinq now supports custom providers for the InjectLambdaAttribute. This feature allows you to define your own logic to determine which methods should be considered injectable without explicitly adding [InjectLambda] attribute. This is particularly useful when working with external libraries or code you can't modify directly:
var oldProvider = InjectLambdaAttribute.Provider;
InjectLambdaAttribute.SetAttributeProvider(memberInfo =>
{
// Your custom logic here
if (memberInfo.Name.StartsWith("ExternalMethod"))
{
return new InjectLambdaAttribute(typoef(MyType), nameof(MyType.ExternalMethodExpression));
}
// fallback to standard provider
return oldProvider(memberInfo);
});Finally, let us look at this query using Entity Framework or the like:
from d in data.ToInjectable()
let e = d.RetrieveWhatever()
where d.FulfillsSomeCriteria()
select new
{
Id = d.Id,
Value = d.DoTheFancy(e)
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
[InjectLambda]
public static Whatever RetrieveWhatever(this Entity value)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public static Expression<Func<Entity, Whatever>> RetrieveWhatever()
{
return d => d.Whatevers.FirstOrDefault(e => ...);
}
[InjectLambda]
public static bool FulfillsSomeCriteria(this Entity value)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public static Expression<Func<Entity, bool>> FulfillsSomeCriteria()
{
return d => ...
}
[InjectLambda]
public static decimal DoTheFancy(this Entity value, Whatever other)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public static Expression<Func<Entity, Whatever, decimal>> DoTheFancy()
{
return (d, e) => ...
}The methods RetrieveWhatever, FulfillsSomeCriteria and DoTheFancy should be marked accordingly, using the attribute [InjectLambda] or just the simple convention "same class, same name, matching signature" (which requires the class to be green listed by the way). And the call ToInjectable can happen anywhere within the LINQ query chain, so we don't have to pollute our business logic.
Note: code duplication should not be necessary. The ordinary method can just compile the expression, ideally only once. A straightforward solution can look like the following code sample (it's possible to encapsulate / organize this stuff however sophisticated it seems fit, NeinLinq has no specific requirements; feel free to use the build-in "Expression Cache" or build something fancy...):
public static CachedExpression<Func<string, int, string>> LimitTextExpr { get; }
= new((v, l) => v != null && v.Length > l ? v.Substring(0, l) : v)
[InjectLambda]
public static string LimitText(this string value, int maxLength)
=> LimitTextExpr.Compiled(value, maxLength);Advanced: that works with instance methods too, so the actual expression code is able to retrieve additional data. Even interfaces and / or base classes can be used to abstract all the things. Thus, we can declare an interface / base class without expressions, but provide the expression to inject using inheritance.
public class ParameterizedFunctions
{
private readonly int narf;
public ParameterizedFunctions(int narf)
{
this.narf = narf;
}
[InjectLambda("FooExpr")]
public string Foo()
{
...
}
public Expression<Func<string>> FooExpr()
{
... // use the narf!
}
}
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
public interface IFunctions
{
[InjectLambda]
string Foo(Entity value); // use abstraction for queries
}
public class Functions : IFunctions
{
[InjectLambda]
public string Foo(Entity value)
{
...
}
public Expression<Func<Entity, string>> Foo()
{
...
}
}Note: injecting instance methods is not as efficient as injecting static methods. Just don't use the former ones, if not really necessary. Furthermore, injecting instance methods of a sealed type reduces the overhead a bit, since there are more things that only need to be done once. Okay, nothing new to say here.
One more thing: to be more hacky and use less extension method ceremony, it's possible to inject properties directly within in models.
public class Model
{
public double Time { get; set; }
public double Distance { get; set; }
[InjectLambda]
public double Velocity => Distance / Time;
public static Expression<Func<Model, double>> VelocityExpr => v => v.Distance / v.Time;
}Again, instead of placing [InjectLambda] on everything it's possible to add all the models to the green-list while calling ToInjectable.
We are writing the year 2024 and still have to worry about null values.
Howsoever, we got used to it and we are fine. But writing queries in C# loaded with null checks doesn't feel right, it just looks awful, the translated SQL even gets worse. A LINQ query just for SQL dbs can spare these null checks, a LINQ query just for in-memory calculations must include them. And a LINQ query for both has a problem (unit testing?), which NeinLinq tries to solve.
The following query may trigger null references:
from a in data
orderby a.SomeInteger
select new
{
Year = a.SomeDate.Year,
Integer = a.SomeOther.SomeInteger,
Others = from b in a.SomeOthers
select b.SomeDate.Month,
More = from c in a.MoreOthers
select c.SomeOther.SomeDate.Day
}While the following query should not:
from a in data
where a != null
orderby a.SomeInteger
select new
{
Year = a.SomeDate.Year,
Integer = a.SomeOther != null
? a.SomeOther.SomeInteger
: 0,
Others = a.SomeOthers != null
? from b in a.SomeOthers
select b.SomeDate.Month
: null,
More = a.MoreOthers != null
? from c in a.MoreOthers
select c.SomeOther != null
? c.SomeOther.SomeDate.Day
: 0
: null
}Maybe we've forgot some check? Or we can relax thanks to NeinLinq:
from a in data.ToNullsafe()
orderby a.SomeInteger
select new
{
Year = a.SomeDate.Year,
Integer = a.SomeOther.SomeInteger,
Others = from b in a.SomeOthers
select b.SomeDate.Month,
More = from c in a.MoreOthers
select c.SomeOther.SomeDate.Day
}As with every ToWhatever helper within NeinLinq, ToNullsafe can be called wherever within the LINQ query chain.
Many data driven applications need to build some kind of dynamic queries. This can lead to dirty string manipulations, complex expression tree plumbing, or a combination of those. Simple and/or-conjunctions are already solved within other libraries, but conjunctions of "foreign" predicates are not that easy.
Let us think of three entities: Academy has Courses, Courses has Lectures.
Expression<Func<Course, bool>> p = c => ...
Expression<Func<Course, bool>> q = c => ...
db.Courses.Where(p.And(q))...Ok, we already know that.
Expression<Func<Academy, bool>> p = a => ...
db.Courses.Where(p.Translate()
.To<Course>(c => c.Academy))...We now can translate a (combined) predicate for a parent entity...
Expression<Func<Lecture, bool>> p = l => ...
db.Courses.Where(p.Translate()
.To<Course>((c, q) => c.Lectures.Any(q))).....and even for child entities.
Let us use all of this as a windup:
IEnumerable<Expression<Func<Academy, bool>>> predicatesForAcademy = ...
IEnumerable<Expression<Func<Course, bool>>> predicatesForCourse = ...
IEnumerable<Expression<Func<Lecture, bool>>> predicatesForLecture = ...
var singlePredicateForAcademy =
predicatesForAcademy.Aggregate((p, q) => p.And(q));
var singlePredicateForCourse =
predicatesForCourse.Aggregate((p, q) => p.And(q));
var singlePredicateForLecture =
predicatesForLecture.Aggregate((p, q) => p.And(q));
var academyPredicateForCourse =
singlePredicateForAcademy.Translate()
.To<Course>(c => c.Academy);
var coursePredicateForCourse =
singlePredicateForCourse; // the hard one ^^
var lecturePredicateForCourse =
singlePredicateForLecture.Translate()
.To<Course>((c, p) => c.Lectures.Any(p));
var finalPredicate =
academyPredicateForCourse.And(coursePredicateForCourse)
.And(lecturePredicateForCourse);
db.Courses.Where(finalPredicate)...In addition to it, no Invoke is used to achieve that: many LINQ providers do not support it (Entity Framework, i'm looking at you...), so this solution should be quite compatible.
As with predicates selectors need some love too. If we've an existing selector for some base type and want to reuse this code for one or more concrete types, we're forced to copy and paste again. Don't do that!
Let us think of two entities (Academy and SpecialAcademy) with according Contracts / ViewModels / DTOs / Whatever (AcademyView and SpecialAcademyView).
Expression<Func<Academy, AcademyView>> s =
a => new AcademyView { Id = a.Id, Name = a.Name };
Expression<Func<SpecialAcademy, SpecialAcademyView>> t =
a => new SpecialAcademyView { Narf = a.Narf };Note that we omit the Member bindings of the first selector within the second one. Don't repeat yourself, remember?
db.Academies.OfType<SpecialAcademy>()
.Select(s.Translate()
.Cross<SpecialAcademy>()
.Apply(t));Although there're more options, the common scenario can look that way: reuse the base selector, start it's translation (type inference), say where to start (no type inference), and finally apply the additional selector (type inference, again).
Now let us consider parent / child relations (Academy and Course).
Expression<Func<Academy, AcademyView>> s =
a => new AcademyView { Id = a.Id, Name = a.Name };
Expression<Func<Course, CourseView>> t =
c => new CourseView { Id = c.Id, Name = c.Name };
db.Courses.Select(s.Translate()
.Cross<Course>(c => c.Academy)
.Apply(c => c.Academy, t));
db.Academies.Select(t.Translate()
.Cross<Academy>((a, v) => a.Courses.Select(v))
.Apply(a => a.Courses, s));Again, apart from other options, we can translate from parent to child: reuse the parent selector, start it's translation, say where to start (given the path to it's parent entity), and finally apply the additional selector (given the path to it's parent "view"). And we can translate the other way too: reuse the child selector, start it's translation, say where to start (given an expression to select the children), and finally apply the additional selector...
To be more flexible the "Source translation" / "Result translation" can be used individually:
Expression<Func<Academy, AcademyView>> selectAcademy =
a => new AcademyView { Id = a.Id, Name = a.Name };
var selectCourseWithAcademy =
selectAcademy.Translate()
.Source<Course>(c => c.Academy)
.Translate()
.Result<CourseView>(c => c.Academy)
.Apply(a => new CourseView
{
Id = a.Id,
Name = a.Name
});Note: to be less verbose "Source translation" / "Result translation" can be used within a single bloated statement, if appropriate:
Expression<Func<Course, CourseView>> selectCourse =
c => new CourseView { Id = c.Id, Name = c.Name };
var selectAcademyWithCourses =
selectCourse.Translate()
.To<Academy, AcademyView>((a, v) => new AcademyView
{
Id = a.Id,
Name = a.Name,
Courses = a.Courses.Select(v)
})Note: for parent / child relations the less dynamic but (maybe) more readable Lambda injection is also an option: just encapsulate the selector as a nice extension method.
This is a really dead simple one. Maybe we should've started here.
Just think of helper functions like the SqlFunctions class provided by Entity Framework. And we need to replace the whole class for unit testing or whatsoever.
var query = ...
CallCodeUsingSqlFunctions(query
.ToSubstitution(typeof(SqlFunctions), typeof(SqlCeFunctions)));
CallCodeUsingSqlFunctions(query
.ToSubstitution(typeof(SqlFunctions), typeof(FakeFunctions)));
...That's it.
Okay, you can use the generic rewrite mechanism of this library to intercept LINQ queries with your own Expression visitor. The code behind the substitution above should provide a good example.
At some point it may be necessary to filter / sort an almost ready query based on user input, which is by its nature not type safe but text based. To handle these scenarios as well a (very) simple helper is included.
var query = data.Where("Name.Length", DynamicCompare.GreaterThan, "7")
.OrderBy("Name").ThenBy("Number", descending: true);It's possible to combine this stuff with the predicate translations above.
var p = DynamicQuery.CreatePredicate<Whatever>("Name", "Contains", "p");
var q = DynamicQuery.CreatePredicate<Whatever>("Name", "Contains", "q");
var query = data.Where(p.Or(q));Note: if you're seeking a possibility to create complex queries based on string manipulation, this won't help. The goal of this library is to stay type safe as long as possible.
