LINQ where clause with lambda expression having OR clauses and null values returning incomplete results

Question

the problem in short

we have a lambda expression used in the Where clause, which is not returning the \"expected\" result.

quick summary

Answer 1

You are checking Parent properties for null in your delegate. The same should work with lambda expressions too.

List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects = analysisObjectRepository
        .FindAll()
        .Where(x => 
            (x.ID == packageId) || 
            (x.Parent != null &&
                (x.Parent.ID == packageId || 
                (x.Parent.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)))
        .ToList();

Answer 2

Try writting the lambda with the same conditions as the delegate. like this:

  List<AnalysisObject> analysisObjects = 
    analysisObjectRepository.FindAll().Where(
    (x => 
       (x.ID == packageId)
    || (x.Parent != null && x.Parent.ID == packageId)
    || (x.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)
    ).ToList();

Answer 3

Your second delegate is not a rewrite of the first in anonymous delegate (rather than lambda) format. Look at your conditions.

First:

x.ID == packageId || x.Parent.ID == packageId || x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId

Second:

(x.ID == packageId) || (x.Parent != null && x.Parent.ID == packageId) || 
(x.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent != null && x.Parent.Parent.ID == packageId)

The call to the lambda would throw an exception for any x where the ID doesn't match and either the parent is null or doesn't match and the grandparent is null. Copy the null checks into the lambda and it should work correctly.

Edit after Comment to Question

If your original object is not a List<T>, then we have no way of knowing what the return type of FindAll() is, and whether or not this implements the IQueryable interface. If it does, then that likely explains the discrepancy. Because lambdas can be converted at compile time into an Expression<Func<T>> but anonymous delegates cannot, then you may be using the implementation of IQueryable when using the lambda version but LINQ-to-Objects when using the anonymous delegate version.

This would also explain why your lambda is not causing a NullReferenceException. If you were to pass that lambda expression to something that implements IEnumerable<T> but not IQueryable<T>, runtime evaluation of the lambda (which is no different from other methods, anonymous or not) would throw a NullReferenceException the first time it encountered an object where ID was not equal to the target and the parent or grandparent was null.

Added 3/16/2011 8:29AM EDT

Consider the following simple example:

IQueryable<MyObject> source = ...; // some object that implements IQueryable<MyObject>

var anonymousMethod =  source.Where(delegate(MyObject o) { return o.Name == "Adam"; });    
var expressionLambda = source.Where(o => o.Name == "Adam");

These two methods produce entirely different results.

The first query is the simple version. The anonymous method results in a delegate that's then passed to the IEnumerable<MyObject>.Where extension method, where the entire contents of source will be checked (manually in memory using ordinary compiled code) against your delegate. In other words, if you're familiar with iterator blocks in C#, it's something like doing this:

public IEnumerable<MyObject> MyWhere(IEnumerable<MyObject> dataSource, Func<MyObject, bool> predicate)
{
    foreach(MyObject item in dataSource)
    {
        if(predicate(item)) yield return item;
    }
}

The salient point here is that you're actually performing your filtering in memory on the client side. For example, if your source were some SQL ORM, there would be no WHERE clause in the query; the entire result set would be brought back to the client and filtered there.

The second query, which uses a lambda expression, is converted to an Expression<Func<MyObject, bool>> and uses the IQueryable<MyObject>.Where() extension method. This results in an object that is also typed as IQueryable<MyObject>. All of this works by then passing the expression to the underlying provider. This is why you aren't getting a NullReferenceException. It's entirely up to the query provider how to translate the expression (which, rather than being an actual compiled function that it can just call, is a representation of the logic of the expression using objects) into something it can use.

An easy way to see the distinction (or, at least, that there is) a distinction, would be to put a call to AsEnumerable() before your call to Where in the lambda version. This will force your code to use LINQ-to-Objects (meaning it operates on IEnumerable<T> like the anonymous delegate version, not IQueryable<T> like the lambda version currently does), and you'll get the exceptions as expected.

TL;DR Version

The long and the short of it is that your lambda expression is being translated into some kind of query against your data source, whereas the anonymous method version is evaluating the entire data source in memory. Whatever is doing the translating of your lambda into a query is not representing the logic that you're expecting, which is why it isn't producing the results you're expecting.