I have this class
public class Item
{
public Coordinate coordinate { get; set; }
...
...
}
With Coordinate being define like this:
public class Coordinate
{
public Coordinate(float latitude, float longitude)
{
Latitude = latitude;
Longitude = longitude;
}
public float Latitude { get; private set; }
public float Longitude { get; private set; }
}
And I want to have a linq query like that :
var grouped = from it in items
group it by it.Coordinate into grp
select grp;
As mentioned here by MSDN I thought this was possible if I would override Equals on my Coordinate class :
Use a named type if you must pass the
query variable to another method.
Create a special class using
auto-implemented properties for the
keys, and then override the Equals
and GetHashCode methods. You can also
use a struct, in which case you do not
strictly have to override those
methods. For more information see How
to: Implement an Immutable Class That
Has Auto-Implemented Properties
Equals implementation for Coordinate class :
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
var coord = obj as Coordinate;
if(coord == null) return false;
return (Latitude == coord.Latitude && Longitude == coord.Longitude);
}
still I cant get my linq query to group by similar coordinates, as my failing test shows :
[TestMethod]
public void GroupBy_3ItemsWith2DifferentCoordinates_Returns2Groups()
{
var items = new List<Item>
{
new Item {Coordinate = new Coordinate(10, 10)},
new Item {Coordinate = new Coordinate(10, 10)},
new Item {Coordinate = new Coordinate(12, 10)},
};
var grouped = from it in items
group it by it.Coordinate into g
select g;
Assert.AreEqual(2, grouped.Count());
}
There is an overload to the GrouBy method that takes an IEqualityComparer as a parameter, but is there the equivalent using the group clause?
Am I doing something wrong?? Any thoughts?
You’ve shown the Equals implementation, but not GetHashCode. You need to override both (and in a consistent way) for grouping to work.
Sample GetHashCode implementation:
Note that comparing
floatvalues for exact equality is always somewhat risky – but I’d at least expect your unit tests to pass, given that they’re not performing any calculations.