如何检查 IEnumerable 是 null 还是空的？

Question

I love string.IsNullOrEmpty method. I'd love to have something that would allow the same functionality for IEnumerable. Is there such? Maybe some collection helper class? The reason I am asking is that in if statements the code looks cluttered if the patter is (mylist.= null && mylist.Any()) . It would be much cleaner to have Foo.IsAny(myList) .

This post doesn't give that answer: IEnumerable is empty? .

Answer 1

Sure you could write that:

public static class Utils {
    public static bool IsAny<T>(this IEnumerable<T> data) {
        return data != null && data.Any();
    }
}

however, be cautious that not all sequences are repeatable; generally I prefer to only walk them once, just in case.

Answer 2

public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable) {
    return enumerable == null || !enumerable.Any();
}

Answer 3

Here's a modified version of @Matt Greer's useful answer that includes a static wrapper class so you can just copy-paste this into a new source file, doesn't depend on Linq, and adds a generic IEnumerable<T> overload, to avoid the boxing of value types that would occur with the non-generic version. [EDIT: Note that use of IEnumerable<T> does not prevent boxing of the enumerator, duck-typing can't prevent that, but at least the elements in a value-typed collection will not each be boxed.]

using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;

public static class IsNullOrEmptyExtension
{
    public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this IEnumerable source)
    {
        if (source != null)
        {
            foreach (object obj in source)
            {
                return false;
            }
        }
        return true;
    }

    public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
    {
        if (source != null)
        {
            foreach (T obj in source)
            {
                return false;
            }
        }
        return true;
    }
}

Answer 4

Another way would be to get the Enumerator and call the MoveNext() method to see if there are any items:

if (mylist != null && mylist.GetEnumerator().MoveNext())
{
    // The list is not null or empty
}

This works for IEnumerable as well as IEnumerable<T>.

Answer 5

The way I do it, taking advantage of some modern C# features:

Option 1)

public static class Utils {
    public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list) {
        return !(list?.Any() ?? false);
    }
}

Option 2)

public static class Utils {
    public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list) {
        return !(list?.Any()).GetValueOrDefault();
    }
}

And by the way, never use Count == 0 or Count() == 0 just to check if a collection is empty. Always use Linq's .Any()

Answer 6

Starting with C#6 you can use null propagation : myList?.Any() == true

If you still find this too cloggy or prefer a good ol' extension method, I would recommend Matt Greer and Marc Gravell's answers, yet with a bit of extended functionality for completeness.

Their answers provide the same basic functionality, but each from another perspective. Matt's answer uses the string.IsNullOrEmpty -mentality, whereas Marc's answer takes Linq's .Any() road to get the job done.

I am personally inclined to use the .Any() road, but would like to add the condition checking functionality from the method's other overload :

    public static bool AnyNotNull<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> predicate = null)
    {
        if (source == null) return false;
        return predicate == null
            ? source.Any()
            : source.Any(predicate);
    }

So you can still do things like : myList.AnyNotNull(item=>item.AnswerToLife == 42); as you could with the regular .Any() but with the added null check

Note that with the C#6 way: myList?.Any() returns a bool? rather than a bool , which is the actual effect of propagating null

Answer 7

This may help

public static bool IsAny<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
    return enumerable?.Any() == true;
}

public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
{
    return enumerable?.Any() != true;
}

Answer 8

if (collection?.Any() == true){
    // if collection contains more than one item
}
if (collection?.Any() != true){
    // if collection is null
    // if collection does not contain any item
}

Answer 9

Here's the code from Marc Gravell's answer , along with an example of using it.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

public static class Utils
{
    public static bool IsAny<T>(this IEnumerable<T> data)
    {
        return data != null && data.Any();
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        IEnumerable<string> items;
        //items = null;
        //items = new String[0];
        items = new String[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" };

        /*** Example Starts Here ***/
        if (items.IsAny())
        {
            foreach (var item in items)
            {
                Console.WriteLine(item);
            }
        }
        else
        {
            Console.WriteLine("No items.");
        }
    }
}

As he says, not all sequences are repeatable, so that code may sometimes cause problems, because IsAny() starts stepping through the sequence. I suspect what Robert Harvey's answer meant was that you often don't need to check for null and empty. Often, you can just check for null and then use foreach .

To avoid starting the sequence twice and take advantage of foreach , I just wrote some code like this:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        IEnumerable<string> items;
        //items = null;
        //items = new String[0];
        items = new String[] { "foo", "bar", "baz" };

        /*** Example Starts Here ***/
        bool isEmpty = true;
        if (items != null)
        {
            foreach (var item in items)
            {
                isEmpty = false;
                Console.WriteLine(item);
            }
        }
        if (isEmpty)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("No items.");
        }
    }
}

I guess the extension method saves you a couple of lines of typing, but this code seems clearer to me. I suspect that some developers wouldn't immediately realize that IsAny(items) will actually start stepping through the sequence. (Of course if you're using a lot of sequences, you quickly learn to think about what steps through them.)

Answer 10

I use Bool IsCollectionNullOrEmpty = !(Collection?.Any()??false); . Hope this helps.

Breakdown:

Collection?.Any() will return null if Collection is null, and false if Collection is empty.

Collection?.Any()??false will give us false if Collection is empty, and false if Collection is null .

Complement of that will give us IsEmptyOrNull .

Answer 11

Jon Skeet's anwser ( https://stackoverflow.com/a/28904021/8207463 ) has a good approach using Extension Method - Any() for NULL and EMPTY. BUT he´s validating the questions´owner in case for NOT NULL. So carefully change Jon´s approach to validate AS NULL to:

If (yourList?.Any() != true) 
{
     ..your code...
}

DO NOT use ( will not validate AS NULL):

If (yourList?.Any() == false) 
{
     ..your code...
}

You can also in case validating AS NOT NULL ( NOT tested just as example but without compiler error) do something like using predicate :

If (yourList?.Any(p => p.anyItem == null) == true) 
{
     ..your code...
}

https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System.Core/System/Linq/Enumerable.cs,8788153112b7ffd0

For which .NET version you can use it please check:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.linq.enumerable.any?view=netframework-4.8#moniker-applies-to

Answer 12

I built this off of the answer by @Matt Greer

He answered the OP's question perfectly.

I wanted something like this while maintaining the original capabilities of Any while also checking for null. I'm posting this in case anyone else needs something similar.

Specifically I wanted to still be able to pass in a predicate.

public static class Utilities
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Determines whether a sequence has a value and contains any elements.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="TSource">The type of the elements of source.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="source">The <see cref="System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable"/> to check for emptiness.</param>
    /// <returns>true if the source sequence is not null and contains any elements; otherwise, false.</returns>
    public static bool AnyNotNull<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source)
    {
        return source?.Any() == true;
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Determines whether a sequence has a value and any element of a sequence satisfies a condition.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="TSource">The type of the elements of source.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="source">An <see cref="System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable"/> whose elements to apply the predicate to.</param>
    /// <param name="predicate">A function to test each element for a condition.</param>
    /// <returns>true if the source sequence is not null and any elements in the source sequence pass the test in the specified predicate; otherwise, false.</returns>
    public static bool AnyNotNull<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, bool> predicate)
    {
        return source?.Any(predicate) == true;
    }
}

The naming of the extension method could probably be better.

Answer 13

I had the same problem and I solve it like :

    public bool HasMember(IEnumerable<TEntity> Dataset)
    {
        return Dataset != null && Dataset.Any(c=>c!=null);
    }

"c=>c!=null" will ignore all the null entities.

Answer 14

可以使用这一行进行验证

myCollection?.FirstOrDefault() == null

Answer 15

I used simple if to check for it

check out my solution

foreach (Pet pet in v.Pets)
{
    if (pet == null)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(" No pet");// enumerator is empty
        break;
    }
    Console.WriteLine("  {0}", pet.Name);
}

Answer 16

The other best solution as below to check empty or not ?

for(var item in listEnumerable)
{
 var count=item.Length;
  if(count>0)
  {
         // not empty or null
   }
  else
  {
       // empty
  }
}

Answer 17

I use this one:

    public static bool IsNotEmpty(this ICollection elements)
    {
        return elements != null && elements.Count > 0;
    }

Ejem:

List<string> Things = null;
if (Things.IsNotEmpty())
{
    //replaces ->  if (Things != null && Things.Count > 0) 
}

Answer 18

Since some resources are exhausted after one read, I thought why not combine the checks and the reads, instead of the traditional separate check, then read.

First we have one for the simpler check-for-null inline extension:

public static System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T> ThrowOnNull<T>(this System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T> source, string paramName = null) => source ?? throw new System.ArgumentNullException(paramName ?? nameof(source));

var first = source.ThrowOnNull().First();

Then we have the little more involved (well, at least the way I wrote it) check-for-null-and-empty inline extension:

public static System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T> ThrowOnNullOrEmpty<T>(this System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T> source, string paramName = null)
{
  using (var e = source.ThrowOnNull(paramName).GetEnumerator())
  {
    if (!e.MoveNext())
    {
      throw new System.ArgumentException(@"The sequence is empty.", paramName ?? nameof(source));
    }

    do
    {
      yield return e.Current;
    }
    while (e.MoveNext());
  }
}

var first = source.ThrowOnNullOrEmpty().First();

You can of course still call both without continuing the call chain. Also, I included the paramName, so that the caller may include an alternate name for the error if it's not "source" being checked, eg "nameof(target)".

Answer 19

 public static bool AnyNotNull<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source)
    {
        return source != null && source.Any();
    }

my own extension method to check Not null and Any

Answer 20

Without custom helpers I recommend either ?.Any() ?? false ?.Any() ?? false or ?.Any() == true which are relatively concise and only need to specify the sequence once.

---

When I want to treat a missing collection like an empty one, I use the following extension method:

public static IEnumerable<T> OrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence)
{
    return sequence ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}

This function can be combined with all LINQ methods and foreach , not just .Any() , which is why I prefer it over the more specialized helper functions people are proposing here.

Answer 21

I use

    list.Where (r=>r.value == value).DefaultIfEmpty().First()

The result will be null if no match, otherwise returns one of the objects

If you wanted the list, I believe leaving of First() or calling ToList() will provide the list or null.

Answer 22

it null will return true

enter    public static bool IsNullOrEmpty<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable)
    {

        try
        {
            return enumerable?.Any() != true;
        }
        catch (Exception)
        {

            return true;
        }
   
    }

code here

Answer 23

just add using System.Linq and see the magic happening when you try to access the available methods in the IEnumerable . Adding this will give you access to method named Count() as simple as that. just remember to check for null value before calling count() :)

Answer 24

看看这个开源库： Nzr.ToolBox

public static bool IsEmpty(this System.Collections.IEnumerable enumerable)