如果其他有效方式如何避免更多？
[英]How to avoid more if else in effective way?
问题描述
I have a function like below but it seems more if else conditions.
我有一个 function 如下所示，但如果其他条件似乎更多。 If there any similar effective way to handle the same.如果有任何类似的有效方法来处理相同的。 This function with my code properly working.这个 function 我的代码正常工作。
public bool UpdateAdjustmentRequest()
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev1Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev2Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev3Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//1234
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//123
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
else if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//124
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//12
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return true;
}
}
}
else if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev3Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//134
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//13
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
Master.ReloadParentPage();
return false;
}
}
}
else if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//14
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if(UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//1
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver1Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved")
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
else if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev2Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev3Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//234
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//23
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
else if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//24
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//2
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver2Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved")
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{ return false;
}
}
}
else if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev3Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["AppLev4Req"].ToString().Trim() == "True")
{
//34
if ((ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved") && (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved"))
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
//3
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver3Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved")
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
else
{
//4
if (ds1.Tables[0].Rows[0]["Approver4Status"].ToString().Trim() == "Approved")
{
if (UpdateApprovedRequest())
{
//done
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
1 个解决方案
解决方案1
1 2021-03-23 06:19:24
I haven't read your whole code because it is quite lengthy.我还没有阅读您的整个代码，因为它很长。 But as far as I can see, you have this pattern in your code:但据我所知，您的代码中有这种模式：
if(FirstCondition())
{
if(SecondCondition())
{
if(ThirdCondition())
{
DoSomething();
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
Which is really difficult to read, because the if and else blocks tend to be really far away from each other (at least at the outer if s).这真的很难阅读，因为if和else块往往彼此相距很远（至少在外部if s）。 You can easiliy avoid it by negating the conditions:您可以通过否定条件来轻松避免它：
if(!FirstCondition())
{
return false;
}
if(!SecondCondition())
{
return false;
}
if(!ThirdCondition())
{
return false;
}
DoSomething();
return true;
This code is much clearer: Here, one can see immediately, that three preconditions are checked, and that some action is performed, if they are fulfilled, otherwise the method is left with a negative result.这段代码更清晰：在这里，可以立即看到，检查了三个先决条件，并且执行了一些操作，如果它们被满足，否则该方法将得到否定结果。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要转载，请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.
相关问题
有没有更有效的方法呢？ - Is there a more effective way of doing this?
编写条件的有效/简短方法，例如 if(a && b) else if(a) else if(b) - Effective/ Short way to write a condition like if(a && b) else if(a) else if(b)
更快，更有效地改变日期格式 - faster and more effective way changing date format
如何在RichTextBox中加载图像更有效？ - How to load image in RichTextBox more effective?
这个 Linq 查询是检索数据的正确方法还是有更有效的方法？ - Is this Linq query a currect way to retrieve data or there are more effective ways?
检查匹配属性和字段的更有效和高效的方法是什么 - What is a more effective and efficient way to check for matching attributes and fields
c＃/使用ftp上传文件的更有效方法 - c# / More effective way to upload file with ftp
C# 交替数字，实现相同结果的更有效方法？ - C# Alternating numbers, more effective way of achieving same result?
如何有效地同步列表和枚举？ - How to synchronize a list and an enumerable in an effective way?
如何使我的程序与重复代码更有效？ - How can I make my program with reoccurring code more effective?
相关标签