• 0

C# and making a TreeView out of arrays


Question

So I have encountered a probleem while trying to populate a TreeView control with nodes. I hope that there are a some kind people who t?ke the time and help me figuure out a correct solution.

So lets say I have 3 arrays:

 

["Example", "2", "1"]

{"Example", "2", "2"]

["Example", "3", "0"]

 

I know that my arrays have always exactly 3 elements in them, so the treeview will never have more than 3 childnodes

 

But all I am able to get is

 

Example

 2

  1

Example

 2

  2

Example

 3

  0

 

But the goal would be:

 

Example

 2

  1

  2

 3

  0

 

So where would I start chasing down the answer to my probleem?
Big thanks in advance :)

 

 

Recommended Posts

  • 0


void InitTreeView(List<string[]> arrays) {

            foreach (var array in arrays) {

                AddArray(array, 0, m_treeView.Nodes);

            }

        }

        /// <summary>

        /// Recursively adds each element of the array to the tree

        /// </summary>

        void AddArray(string[] array, int index, TreeNodeCollection nodes) {

            // Termination condition: we've past the bounds of the array

            if (index < array.Length) {

                var nextNode = AddValue(array[index], nodes);

                AddArray(array, index + 1, nextNode.Nodes);

            }

        }

        /// <summary>

        /// If the value exists, returns it, otherwise creates a new value

        /// </summary>

        TreeNode AddValue(string value, TreeNodeCollection nodes) {

            var index = nodes.IndexOfKey(value);

            if (index == -1) {

                var newNode = new TreeNode(value) { Name = value };

                nodes.Add(newNode);

                return newNode;

            }

            return nodes[index];

        }

  • 0

        private static TreeView GetTree(TreeView Tree, List<string[]> Items)
        {
            foreach (string[] item in Items)
            {
                TreeNode parent = new TreeNode();
                parent.Text = item[0];
                TreeNode child = new TreeNode();
                child.Text = item[1];
                TreeNode child2 = new TreeNode();
                child2.Text = item[2];
                child.Nodes.Add(child2);
                parent.Nodes.Add(child);
                Tree.Nodes.Add(parent);
            }
            return Tree;
        }

Well, I have a code  that goes through each array and creates parentnode with array first item, childnode with second and childnode of childnode with third. So thats pretty basic approach

 

  • 0

I imagine you want to do something like the following pseudo code.
Idea is that you create the array of children you want before you create the treenode with the label.

tv = new TreeView();
dict = new Dictionary<String, List<String>>();
arrs = array of those arrays;

for arr in arrs:
     dict[arr[1]].Add(arr[2]);

for (key, value) in dict:
    tv.Nodes.Add(new TreeNode(key, value.ToArray()))
  • 0
  On 22/12/2013 at 14:17, Lant said:

 

I imagine you want to do something like the following pseudo code.

Idea is that you create the array of children you want before you create the treenode with the label.

 

 

Got lost trying to implement something like that, although the approach is right, I need to create the last level nodes first

  • 0

What sort of performance are you looking for?  If you're just talking a few hundred items, then try this approach.

 

Each node should be identifiable via a predictable, unique key of your creation (it could be, literally, the value you're trying to insert).  Try to find your parent node by looking for the key it should have.  If you can't find it, create a new node and insert it.  If it returns something instead, then use that as the parent of the key you're trying to insert.

  • 0
  On 22/12/2013 at 16:55, jakem1 said:

Try a recursive function.

This is the right way to go, I know that, but I am totally unsure how the code should look like.

Regarding to performance, it is important in my case since we're talking about thousands of nodes here.

  • 0
  On 22/12/2013 at 17:01, ka-la said:

This is the right way to go, I know that, but I am totally unsure how the code should look like.

Regarding to performance, it is important in my case since we're talking about thousands of nodes here.

 

As a general rule of thumb, if you find yourself pushing program state into some sort of explicit stack when using an iterative solution (pushing state to a queue for example): you are may just be doing an explicit recursion (what I mean by this is that you are doing the same work that a recursion would do for you) and are may be better suited to just use a recursive solution.

  • 0

This should be very straightforward to convert to C#, but here's the general idea for a recursive solution:

InitTreeView:
    var data = new List<string[]> { " Your data here " };
    foreach array in data:
        AddArray(array, 0, root collection)

AddArray(array, index, nodes):
    // Termination condition: index is past the end of the array
    // Otherwise:
    nextNode = AddValue(array[index], nodes)
    AddArray(array, index + 1, nextNode collection)

AddValue(value, nodes):
    // If node exists in the collection, return it
    // Otherwise create new node with the value, add it and return it
  • 0
  On 26/12/2013 at 17:08, Andre S. said:

 

This should be very straightforward to convert to C#, but here's the general idea for a recursive solution:


InitTreeView:
    var data = new List<string[]> { " Your data here " };
    foreach array in data:
        AddArray(array, 0, root collection)

AddArray(array, index, nodes):
    // Termination condition: index is past the end of the array
    // Otherwise:
    nextNode = AddValue(array[index], nodes)
    AddArray(array[index], index + 1, nextNode collection)

AddValue(value, nodes):
    // If node exists in the collection, return it
    // Otherwise create new node with the value, add it and return it

Some parts of the code still remain as a puzzle for me:

1)  What should AddValue return, a collection or a treenode?

2) AddArray( array[index].... seems weird to me, it expects an array, but your code sends it a value from array with that index

3) What should AddArray return? my best guess so far is, it is just a void and does not return anything.

4) nextNode collection should be nextNode.Nodes ? (case the AddValue returns a treenode)

  • 0
  On 27/12/2013 at 15:08, ka-la said:

Some parts of the code still remain as a puzzle for me:

1)  What should AddValue return, a collection or a treenode?

2) AddArray( array[index].... seems weird to me, it expects an array, but your code sends it a value from array with that index

3) What should AddArray return? my best guess so far is, it is just a void and does not return anything.

4) nextNode collection should be nextNode.Nodes ? (case the AddValue returns a treenode)

1) As I wrote it, it returns a TreeNode. You could just return the collection as well as that's the only thing AddArray needs.

2) Oops that was a mistake, fixed. Should pass array.

3) AddArray is void.

4) Yup.

 

Is this homework?

  • 0
        private static TreeView GetTree(TreeView Tree)
        {
            Tree.BeginUpdate();
            List<string[]> l_tree = new List<string[]>();
            string[] str1 = new string[] {"Example", "2", "1"};
            string[] str2 = new string[] { "Example", "2", "2"};
            string[] str3 = new string[] { "Example", "3", "0" };
            l_tree.Add(str1);
            l_tree.Add(str2);
            l_tree.Add(str3);

            foreach (string[] array in l_tree)
            {
                AddArray(array, 0, Tree.Nodes);
            }
            Tree.EndUpdate();
            return Tree;
        }

        private static void AddArray(string[] array, int index, TreeNodeCollection nodes)
        {
            if (index < 3)
            {
                var nextNode = AddValue(array[index], nodes);
                AddArray(array, index + 1, nextNode.Nodes);
            }
        }

        private static TreeNode AddValue(string value, TreeNodeCollection nodes)
        {
            if (nodes.Count == 0)
            {
                TreeNode newnode = new TreeNode();
                newnode.Text = value;
                nodes.Add(newnode);
                return newnode;
            }
            else
            {
                foreach (TreeNode node in nodes)
                {
                    if (node.Text == value)
                    {
                        return node;
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        TreeNode newnode = new TreeNode();
                        newnode.Text = value;
                        node.Nodes.Add(newnode);
                        return node;
                    }
                }
            }
            return null;
        }

If the initial tree is empty, I get nullreferenceexception, since I cant go through the empty collection in addvalue

Example

 2

  1

    2

    0

  3

 

 

  • 0
  On 27/12/2013 at 22:59, ka-la said:

Sir I am truly thankful for your help, not sure how to return the regards :)

Glad to be of help. :) By the way, you can write this:

    List<string[]> l_tree = new List<string[]>();
    string[] str1 = new string[] {"Example", "2", "1"};
    string[] str2 = new string[] { "Example", "2", "2"};
    string[] str3 = new string[] { "Example", "3", "0" };
    l_tree.Add(str1);
    l_tree.Add(str2);
    l_tree.Add(str3);

more simply as:

    var l_tree = new List<string[]> {
        new[] { "Example", "2", "1" },
        new[] { "Example", "2", "2" },
        new[] { "Example", "3", "0" }
    }
  • 0

I haven't tested but are you required to use the new[] syntax for the string arrays(i.e. string[]) in this example or can you get away with removing that part because of the string type?

  • 0
  On 28/12/2013 at 02:56, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

I haven't tested but are you required to use the new[] syntax for the string arrays(i.e. string[]) in this example or can you get away with removing that part because of the string type?

new[] { "a", "b" }

 is shorthand (since C# 3.0) for :

new string[] { "a", "b" }

There's also a special case (which was just to copy C/C++ in C# 1.0) for assignment to a new variable, where you can omit everything:

string[] array = { "a", "b" }

But then you have to explicitely type the variable, you can't use var. IMO this is old fashioned and for consistency everyone should write:

var array = new[] { "a", "b" }

Of course this works for all types and not just string.

  • 0
  On 28/12/2013 at 03:12, Andre S. said:
new[] { "a", "b" }

 is shorthand (since C# 3.0) for :

new string[] { "a", "b" }

There's also a special case (which was just to copy C/C++ in C# 1.0) for assignment to a new variable, where you can omit everything:

string[] array = { "a", "b" }

But then you have to explicitely type the variable, you can't use var. IMO this is old fashioned and for consistency everyone should write:

var array = new[] { "a", "b" }

Of course this works for all types and not just string.

 

 

Right, right, Is the special case for assignment still possible in newer C# revisions or is is not-recommended/depreciated? I initially thought that you were being a bit more verbose with the new[] statement in the compound list assignment because it was required. Sounds like you were doing it more for consistencies sake; which is fair.

  • 0
  On 28/12/2013 at 03:28, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

Right, right, Is the special case for assignment still possible in newer C# revisions or is is not-recommended/depreciated? I initially thought that you were being a bit more verbose with the new[] statement in the compound list assignment because it was required. Sounds like you were doing it more for consistencies sake; which is fair.

I'm doing it in the list assignment because it is and has always been required in that case. You can omit new[] only if you assign the array expression to an explicitely typed variable. This, in addition to the fact that this syntax contradicts the usual C# principle that every expression has a type, makes it inconsistent and confusing in my eyes, but it's still supported. It's only my opinion and not any sort of official deprecation or recommendation.

  • Like 1
  • 0
  On 28/12/2013 at 03:56, Andre S. said:

I'm doing it in the list assignment because it is and has always been required in that case. You can omit new[] only if you assign the array expression to an explicitely typed variable. This, in addition to the fact that this syntax contradicts the usual C# principle that every expression has a type, makes it inconsistent and confusing in my eyes, but it's still supported. It's only my opinion and not any sort of official deprecation or recommendation.

 

Fair enough, I'll say that the bolded text is a good reason to use it in the above code regardless of opinion ;-)

  • 0
  On 28/12/2013 at 04:09, snaphat (Myles Landwehr) said:

Fair enough, I'll say that the bolded text is a good reason to use it in the above code regardless of opinion ;-)

I'm not sure if we're talking past each other... this:

new List<string[]> {
     { "a", "b", "c" },
     { "b", "c", "d" }
}

is not and never was legal C#.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft changed recall to opt-in some time ago, which seems to still be the case. I personally feel like that is the right move for something like this. You are right, settings that turn themselves back on after an update is totally unacceptable; its weird how that only happened with privacy and advertising related settings...
    • I have a Tab S9 FE and a Tab A9+ which is a lot less expensive. I much prefer the TabA9+. 1. Its display is more landscape while that of the S9 FE is more boxy. 2. They both drain battery at about the same rate of between 7% and 9% an hour depending on how I use them 3. The Tab A9+ charges a lot faster than S9 FE, The S9 FE is better at handling memory, It is faster. They both have 8GB. The TabA9+ does a lot better at handling memory on Android 15, One UI 7.0 than it did on Android 14, One UI 6.1
    • Following rough launch, Splitgate 2 is going back to beta as studio announces layoffs by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe The sequel to the free-to-play arena shooter Splitgate was released just a couple of months ago alongside a surprise Battle Royale mode, but it doesn't look like the launch has gone too well for the studio, 1047 Games. In a lengthy social media post, the developer revealed that it is making some major changes within the company that will also affect its games. The studio said that it agrees with the community regarding Splitgate 2 launching too early with rushed features. Because of this, the title is returning to its beta state. While Splitgate 2 will remain playable, the studio will be deep in development reworking the title behind the scenes until at least early 2026. The soon-landing Season 3 content update is still planned for release. "We're returning not just to our roots in what we build, but in how we build it – with you," said the company. "That means more playtests, more surveys, more listening, and truly being community first. Our goal is to combine the DNA of the first game with the best improvements from the second." The studio also revealed that this shakeup means that it had to cut some team members from the studio. It didn't give an exact number for the roles being cut but said that "we hope to bring them back when we can." In the same vein of keeping costs low, 1047 Games will be shutting down the servers for the original Splitgate within a month's time. "While we'd love to keep servers online indefinitely, it's cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past couple of years, and we have to prioritize our team," added the studio. It said that offline play or peer-to-peer matchmaking for Splitgate are being explored for fans to keep playing, but nothing concrete about these potential options was announced today.
    • It sounds like you are referring to the hidden div scandal, which due to an architectural limitation on Edge prevented hardware acceleration, but of course Google denied that it was specifically intended to break Edge, which of course I don't believe. Google is known for that kind of evilness. The hidden div was also being served to Chrome in that case, but it had a different method that didn't break hardware acceleration.
    • I guess we can agree to disagree. I had the completely opposite experience, and not just that it annoyed me, I was frequently unable to use the sites I visited regularly.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      SmileWorks Dental earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Community Regular
      vZeroG went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • Collaborator
      Snake Doc earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Snake Doc earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Johnny Mrkvička earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      587
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      199
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      193
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      133
    5. 5
      Xenon
      122
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!