Correct Way to Retrieve Header Records With Filtered Detail Records [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I wrote this in LinqPad. It works. The whole point was to retrieve header records, and only include some detail records. I'm looking for possible improvements to this, specifically around the anonymous type part. The only way I was able to get this to work as to use an anonymous type, then create the ToEntitySet() extension method to convert the detail rows. I just feel like I'm making this harder than it is. But maybe not? Any comments are welcome.



void Main()

var query =
from header in AccountHeader
join detail in AccountDetail
on header.AccountHeaderId equals detail.AccountHeaderId
into groupedDetails
where groupedDetails.Any(x => x.Status == "status2")
select new

Account = header,
AccountDetail = groupedDetails.Where(x => x.Status == "status2")
;

foreach (var item in query)

var account = item.Account;
account.AccountDetail = item.AccountDetail.ToEntitySet();
account.Dump();



public static class Extensions

public static EntitySet<T> ToEntitySet<T> (this IEnumerable<T> source) where T : class

var entitySet = new EntitySet<T> ();
entitySet.AddRange (source);
return entitySet;








share|improve this question













closed as off-topic by t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Mast, Imus Apr 9 at 11:42


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Imus
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 2




    You need to unfoo your code and post the real one. Currently this is off-topic.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:08







  • 1




    Why do I need to unfoo my code? How does that make a difference?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:17






  • 1




    Well, I'm stuck then, because my company doesn't want me to post our types. I'm really struggling to understand how it really matters. This is real code, with just a couple of types renamed. Does that really alter the overall understanding of what I've posted?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:35






  • 1




    Maybe try to find different names that still make sense and don't look like pseudocode... It's really hard to follow foos. We don't know your code and seeting only garbage isn't helping to understand it.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:40







  • 3




    That was sarcasm.
    – Jim
    Apr 7 at 22:05
















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I wrote this in LinqPad. It works. The whole point was to retrieve header records, and only include some detail records. I'm looking for possible improvements to this, specifically around the anonymous type part. The only way I was able to get this to work as to use an anonymous type, then create the ToEntitySet() extension method to convert the detail rows. I just feel like I'm making this harder than it is. But maybe not? Any comments are welcome.



void Main()

var query =
from header in AccountHeader
join detail in AccountDetail
on header.AccountHeaderId equals detail.AccountHeaderId
into groupedDetails
where groupedDetails.Any(x => x.Status == "status2")
select new

Account = header,
AccountDetail = groupedDetails.Where(x => x.Status == "status2")
;

foreach (var item in query)

var account = item.Account;
account.AccountDetail = item.AccountDetail.ToEntitySet();
account.Dump();



public static class Extensions

public static EntitySet<T> ToEntitySet<T> (this IEnumerable<T> source) where T : class

var entitySet = new EntitySet<T> ();
entitySet.AddRange (source);
return entitySet;








share|improve this question













closed as off-topic by t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Mast, Imus Apr 9 at 11:42


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Imus
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 2




    You need to unfoo your code and post the real one. Currently this is off-topic.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:08







  • 1




    Why do I need to unfoo my code? How does that make a difference?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:17






  • 1




    Well, I'm stuck then, because my company doesn't want me to post our types. I'm really struggling to understand how it really matters. This is real code, with just a couple of types renamed. Does that really alter the overall understanding of what I've posted?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:35






  • 1




    Maybe try to find different names that still make sense and don't look like pseudocode... It's really hard to follow foos. We don't know your code and seeting only garbage isn't helping to understand it.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:40







  • 3




    That was sarcasm.
    – Jim
    Apr 7 at 22:05












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I wrote this in LinqPad. It works. The whole point was to retrieve header records, and only include some detail records. I'm looking for possible improvements to this, specifically around the anonymous type part. The only way I was able to get this to work as to use an anonymous type, then create the ToEntitySet() extension method to convert the detail rows. I just feel like I'm making this harder than it is. But maybe not? Any comments are welcome.



void Main()

var query =
from header in AccountHeader
join detail in AccountDetail
on header.AccountHeaderId equals detail.AccountHeaderId
into groupedDetails
where groupedDetails.Any(x => x.Status == "status2")
select new

Account = header,
AccountDetail = groupedDetails.Where(x => x.Status == "status2")
;

foreach (var item in query)

var account = item.Account;
account.AccountDetail = item.AccountDetail.ToEntitySet();
account.Dump();



public static class Extensions

public static EntitySet<T> ToEntitySet<T> (this IEnumerable<T> source) where T : class

var entitySet = new EntitySet<T> ();
entitySet.AddRange (source);
return entitySet;








share|improve this question













I wrote this in LinqPad. It works. The whole point was to retrieve header records, and only include some detail records. I'm looking for possible improvements to this, specifically around the anonymous type part. The only way I was able to get this to work as to use an anonymous type, then create the ToEntitySet() extension method to convert the detail rows. I just feel like I'm making this harder than it is. But maybe not? Any comments are welcome.



void Main()

var query =
from header in AccountHeader
join detail in AccountDetail
on header.AccountHeaderId equals detail.AccountHeaderId
into groupedDetails
where groupedDetails.Any(x => x.Status == "status2")
select new

Account = header,
AccountDetail = groupedDetails.Where(x => x.Status == "status2")
;

foreach (var item in query)

var account = item.Account;
account.AccountDetail = item.AccountDetail.ToEntitySet();
account.Dump();



public static class Extensions

public static EntitySet<T> ToEntitySet<T> (this IEnumerable<T> source) where T : class

var entitySet = new EntitySet<T> ();
entitySet.AddRange (source);
return entitySet;










share|improve this question












share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 7 at 20:42
























asked Apr 7 at 19:36









Bob Horn

13617




13617




closed as off-topic by t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Mast, Imus Apr 9 at 11:42


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Imus
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Mast, Imus Apr 9 at 11:42


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – t3chb0t, hjpotter92, Raystafarian, Imus
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







  • 2




    You need to unfoo your code and post the real one. Currently this is off-topic.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:08







  • 1




    Why do I need to unfoo my code? How does that make a difference?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:17






  • 1




    Well, I'm stuck then, because my company doesn't want me to post our types. I'm really struggling to understand how it really matters. This is real code, with just a couple of types renamed. Does that really alter the overall understanding of what I've posted?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:35






  • 1




    Maybe try to find different names that still make sense and don't look like pseudocode... It's really hard to follow foos. We don't know your code and seeting only garbage isn't helping to understand it.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:40







  • 3




    That was sarcasm.
    – Jim
    Apr 7 at 22:05












  • 2




    You need to unfoo your code and post the real one. Currently this is off-topic.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:08







  • 1




    Why do I need to unfoo my code? How does that make a difference?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:17






  • 1




    Well, I'm stuck then, because my company doesn't want me to post our types. I'm really struggling to understand how it really matters. This is real code, with just a couple of types renamed. Does that really alter the overall understanding of what I've posted?
    – Bob Horn
    Apr 7 at 20:35






  • 1




    Maybe try to find different names that still make sense and don't look like pseudocode... It's really hard to follow foos. We don't know your code and seeting only garbage isn't helping to understand it.
    – t3chb0t
    Apr 7 at 20:40







  • 3




    That was sarcasm.
    – Jim
    Apr 7 at 22:05







2




2




You need to unfoo your code and post the real one. Currently this is off-topic.
– t3chb0t
Apr 7 at 20:08





You need to unfoo your code and post the real one. Currently this is off-topic.
– t3chb0t
Apr 7 at 20:08





1




1




Why do I need to unfoo my code? How does that make a difference?
– Bob Horn
Apr 7 at 20:17




Why do I need to unfoo my code? How does that make a difference?
– Bob Horn
Apr 7 at 20:17




1




1




Well, I'm stuck then, because my company doesn't want me to post our types. I'm really struggling to understand how it really matters. This is real code, with just a couple of types renamed. Does that really alter the overall understanding of what I've posted?
– Bob Horn
Apr 7 at 20:35




Well, I'm stuck then, because my company doesn't want me to post our types. I'm really struggling to understand how it really matters. This is real code, with just a couple of types renamed. Does that really alter the overall understanding of what I've posted?
– Bob Horn
Apr 7 at 20:35




1




1




Maybe try to find different names that still make sense and don't look like pseudocode... It's really hard to follow foos. We don't know your code and seeting only garbage isn't helping to understand it.
– t3chb0t
Apr 7 at 20:40





Maybe try to find different names that still make sense and don't look like pseudocode... It's really hard to follow foos. We don't know your code and seeting only garbage isn't helping to understand it.
– t3chb0t
Apr 7 at 20:40





3




3




That was sarcasm.
– Jim
Apr 7 at 22:05




That was sarcasm.
– Jim
Apr 7 at 22:05















active

oldest

votes






















active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes

Popular posts from this blog

Python Lists

Aion

JavaScript Array Iteration Methods