I have a list of orders
.
I want to select orders
based on a set of order statuses.
So essentially select orders where order.Statu
Just be careful, .Contains()
will match any substring including the string that you do not expect. For eg. new[] { "A", "B", "AA" }.Contains("A")
will return you both A and AA which you might not want. I have been bitten by it.
.Any()
or .Exists()
is safer choice
NB: this is LINQ to objects, I am not 100% sure if it work in LINQ to entities, and have no time to check it right now. In fact it isn't too difficult to translate it to x in [A, B, C] but you have to check for yourself.
So, instead of Contains as a replacement of the ???? in your code you can use Any which is more LINQ-uish:
// Filter the orders based on the order status
var filteredOrders = from order in orders.Order
where new[] { "A", "B", "C" }.Any(s => s == order.StatusCode)
select order;
It's the opposite to what you know from SQL this is why it is not so obvious.
Of course, if you prefer fluent syntax here it is:
var filteredOrders = orders.Order.Where(order => new[] {"A", "B", "C"}.Any(s => s == order.StatusCode));
Here we again see one of the LINQ surprises (like Joda-speech which puts select at the end). However it is quite logical in this sense that it checks if at least one of the items (that is any) in a list (set, collection) matches a single value.
var statuses = new[] { "A", "B", "C" };
var filteredOrders = from order in orders.Order
where statuses.Contains(order.StatusCode)
select order;
Try with Contains function;
Determines whether a sequence contains a specified element.
var allowedStatus = new[]{ "A", "B", "C" };
var filteredOrders = orders.Order.Where(o => allowedStatus.Contains(o.StatusCode));
Your status-codes are also a collection, so use Contains:
var allowedStatus = new[]{ "A", "B", "C" };
var filteredOrders = orders.Order.Where(o => allowedStatus.Contains(o.StatusCode));
or in query syntax:
var filteredOrders = from order in orders.Order
where allowedStatus.Contains(order.StatusCode)
select order;