• 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

    • Now I may not quite understand this, so someone tell me if I'm off the mark here, but does this mean they'll be potentially removing drivers for now unsupported systems, such as old processors and chipsets? In the past 15 years, Windows has been amazing at just installing on any device, and often having zero, or just a few unessential drivers missing on first install. It would be a shame for that experience to go, though I understand the reasoning, or at least their financial reasoning for it!
    • Microsoft is removing legacy drivers from Windows Update by Usama Jawad Last month, we learned that Microsoft is making major changes to the development of hardware drivers in Windows. This included the retirement of Windows Metadata and Internet Services (WMIS), along with the process for pre-production driver signing. Now, the Redmond tech firm has informed partners that it will be getting rid of old drivers in Windows Update. In what is being described as a "strategic" move to improve the security posture and compatibility of Windows, Microsoft has announced that it will be performing a cleanup of legacy drivers that are still being delivered through Windows Update. Right now, the first phase only targets drivers that already have modern replacements present in Windows Update. As a part of its cleanup process, Microsoft will expire legacy drivers so that it is not offered to any system. This expiration involves removing audience segments in the Hardware Development Center. Partners can still republish a driver that was deemed as legacy by Microsoft, but the firm may require a justification. Once the Redmond tech giant completes its first phase of this cleanup, it will give partners a six-month grace period to share any concerns. However, if no concerns are brought forward, the drivers will be permanently eradicated from Windows Update. Microsoft has emphasized that this will be a regular activity moving forward and while the current phase only targets legacy drivers with newer replacements, the next phases may expand the scope of this cleanup and remove other drivers too. That said, each time the company takes a step in this direction, it will inform partners so that there is transparency between both parties. Microsoft believes that this move will help improve the security posture of Windows and ensure that an optimized set of drivers is offered to end-users. The firm has asked partners to review their drivers in Hardware Program so that there are no unexpected surprises during this cleanup process.
    • No idea, but I had a client the other week that lost the entire drive to it. I suggested relying on the Samsung T7's instead. The Sandisk Extreme's had reliability issues too.
    • I use it every day so personally yes I need it, or rather I want it. I use OpenShell though, not the garbage modern Start Menu. I just counted and at the moment I have a total of 92 program shortcuts organized into six folders almost exactly the way I did back in Windows 95. I can get to any program I want to run very quickly. I never use Search to find or run programs.
    • I do miss the Apps view from Windows 8.1 Update.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      KynanSEIT earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      gowtham07 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      lethalman went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Wayne Robinson earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Karan Khanna earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      683
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      274
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      220
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      171
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      160
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!