rspec/rules/S1155/csharp/rule.adoc

Using ``++.Count()++`` to test for emptiness works, but using ``++.Any()++`` makes the intent clearer, and the code more readable. However, there are some cases where special attention should be paid:

* if the collection is an ``++EntityFramework++`` or other ORM query, calling ``++.Count()++`` will cause executing a potentially massive SQL query and could put a large overhead on the application database. Calling ``++.Any()++`` will also connect to the database, but will generate much more efficient SQL.
* if the collection is part of a LINQ query that contains ``++.Select()++`` statements that create objects, a large amount of memory could be unnecessarily allocated. Calling ``++.Any()++`` will be much more efficient because it will execute fewer iterations of the enumerable.

== Noncompliant Code Example

----
private static bool HasContent(IEnumerable<string> strings)
{
  return strings.Count() > 0;  // Noncompliant
}

private static bool HasContent2(IEnumerable<string> strings)
{
  return strings.Count() >= 1;  // Noncompliant
}

private static bool IsEmpty(IEnumerable<string> strings)
{
  return strings.Count() == 0;  // Noncompliant
}
----

== Compliant Solution

----
private static bool HasContent(IEnumerable<string> strings)
{
  return strings.Any();
}

private static bool IsEmpty(IEnumerable<string> strings)
{
  return !strings.Any();
}
----

ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::message.adoc[]

'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

include::comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]