If you have two independent update objects:
var U1 = Builders<T>.Update.Set(_ => _.A, null);
var U2 = Builders<T>.Update.Set(_ => _.B, null);
How can you chain them so that the result would be:
var U = Builders<T>.Update.Set(_ => _.A, null).Set(_ => _.B, null);
I tried to do this:
var U = U1 & U2;
and, while it works for filters, it doesn't work for updates
You can add to an existing update definition by appending a new set.
var U1 = Builders<T>.Update.Set(_ => _.A, null);
var U = U1.Set(_ => _.B, null);
I admit that it is a bit funny that the & operator cannot be used for the Update definitions. Also: your own code hints at this as well.
In one of our projects we use this in a loop to construct a combined set of set-operations.
$addToSet does not add another Set() in a fluent manner, which is what the OP is trying to do. Instead it adds an element to an array.
You can do something like this if you have multiple conditions or you want to use a foreach loop
var update = Builders<User>.Update.Combine();
if(Name != null)
{
update = update.Set(Name, newValue);
}
This way you don't have to necessarily initialize the update object with a set statement.
