I’ve got quite a strange thing happening on an ASP.NET 4.0 web application using EF 4.0 as its database backend. Essentially, I’ve got a table that stores users’ password reset requests (containing a reset key of type byte[], an expiry of type DateTime, and a foreign key to a User containing a string Email and string Name). Some users do not have an email address set, so for a PasswordRequest request, request.Email is null.
Here’s the problem. This works perfectly fine:
string u = Request["u"];
string e = Request["e"];
var requests = from r in context.PasswordRequests
where r.User.Name == u && r.User.Email == null && r.Expiry >= DateTime.Now
select r;
I get the expected number of results (nonzero, since there are entries with null emails).
But this always returns an empty collection when e is null:
string u = Request["u"];
string e = Request["e"];
var requests = from r in context.PasswordRequests
where r.User.Name == u && r.User.Email == e && r.Expiry >= DateTime.Now
select r;
The only thing that I got to work properly (which doesn’t logically make any sense) is this:
string u = Request["u"];
string e = Request["e"];
IQueryable<PasswordRequest> requests;
if (e == null)
requests = from r in context.PasswordRequests
where r.User.Name == u && r.User.Email == null && r.Expiry >= DateTime.Now
select r;
else
requests = from r in context.PasswordRequests
where r.User.Name == u && r.User.Email == e && r.Expiry >= DateTime.Now
select r;
I’m absolutely stumped. Any ideas?
Basically this is a mismatch between SQL and C# when it comes to the handling of nulls. You don’t need to use two queries, but you need:
It’s annoying, and there may be a helper function to make life easier, but it fundamentally comes from SQL’s null handling where
will not match if both X and Y are null. (Whereas in C# the equivalent expression would be true.)
You may need to do the same for
uas well, unless that is non-nullable in the database.One small trick you could at least try if you’re happy with null and empty strings being handled the same way is:
I believe that will perform null coalescing on both the email column and
e, so you never end up comparing null with anything.