Consider the following simple model:
public class TestClass {
[MyRequired(ErrorMessage = "Some error message")]
public int TestVariable { get; set; }
}
This will implicitly add the [Required] attribute and the rendered html will contain data-val attributes for both [Required] and [MyRequired].
I found 2 possible solutions:
// Solution #1 (.net 5 only)
DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider.AddImplicitRequiredAttributeForValueTypes = false;
// Solution #2
services.AddControllers(options => options.SuppressImplicitRequiredAttributeForNonNullableReferenceTypes = true);
Unfortunately the first solution is not available for .net 6 and the second solution doesn't seem to work (propably because int is a value type and not a reference type?)
Finally I was able to solve this by making the TestVariable nullable:
public int? TestVariable { get; set; }
Not sure if this is good practice. Is there any way to disable this behavior globally without making everything nullable?
Related
We have a lot of Dto classes in our project and on various occasions SELECT them using Expressions from the entity framework context. This has the benefit, that EF can parse our request, and build a nice SQL statement out of it.
Unfortunatly, this has led to very big Expressions, because we have no way of combining them.
So if you have a class DtoA with 3 properties, and one of them is of class DtoB with 5 properties, and again one of those is of class DtoC with 10 properties, you would have to write one big selector.
public static Expression<Func<ClassA, DtoA>> ToDto =
from => new DtoA
{
Id = from.Id,
Name = from.Name,
Size = from.Size,
MyB = new DtoB
{
Id = from.MyB.Id,
...
MyCList = from.MyCList.Select(myC => new DtoC
{
Id = myC.Id,
...
}
}
};
Also, they cannot be reused. When you have DtoD, which also has a propertiy of class DtoB, you would have to paste in the desired code of DtoB and DtoC again.
public static Expression<Func<ClassD, DtoD>> ToDto =
from => new DtoD
{
Id = from.Id,
Length = from.Length,
MyB = new DtoB
{
Id = from.MyB.Id,
...
MyCList = from.MyCList.Select(myC => new DtoC
{
Id = myC.Id,
...
}
}
};
So this will escalate pretty fast. Please note that the mentioned code is just an example, but you get the idea.
I would like to define an expression for each class and then combine them as required, as well as EF still be able to parse it and generate the SQL statement so to not lose the performance improvement.
How can i achieve this?
Have you thought about using Automapper ? You can define your Dtos and create a mapping between the original entity and the Dto and/or vice versa, and using the projection, you don't need any select statements as Automapper will do it for you automatically and it will project only the dto's properties into SQL query.
for example, if you have a Person table with the following structure:
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string FamilyName { get; set; }
public string GivenName { get; set; }
public string Initial { get; set; }
public string PreferredName { get; set; }
public string FormerTitle { get; set; }
public string FormerFamilyName { get; set; }
public string FormerGivenName { get; set; }
}
and your dto was like this :
public class PersonDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string FamilyName { get; set; }
public string GivenName { get; set; }
}
You can create a mapping between Person and PersonDto like this
Mapper.CreateMap<Person, PersonDto>()
and when you query the database using Entity Framework (for example), you can use something like this to get PersonDto columns only:
ctx.People.Where(p=> p.FamilyName.Contains("John"))
.Project()
.To<PersonDto>()
.ToList();
which will return a list of PersonDtos that has a family name contains "John", and if you run a sql profiler for example you will see that only the PersonDto columns were selected.
Automapper also supports hierachy, if your Person for example has an Address linked to it that you want to return AddressDto for it.
I think it worth to have a look and check it, it cleans a lot of the mess that manual mapping requires.
I thought about it a little, and I didn't come up with any "awesome" solution.
Essentially you have two general choices here,
Use placeholder and rewrite expression tree entirely.
Something like this,
public static Expression<Func<ClassA, DtoA>> DtoExpression{
get{
Expression<Func<ClassA, DtoA>> dtoExpression = classA => new DtoA(){
BDto = Magic.Swap(ClassB.DtoExpression),
};
// todo; here you have access to dtoExpression,
// you need to use expression transformers
// in order to find & replace the Magic.Swap(..) call with the
// actual Expression code(NewExpression),
// Rewriting the expression tree is no easy task,
// but EF will be able to understand it this way.
// the code will be quite tricky, but can be solved
// within ~50-100 lines of code, I expect.
// For that, see ExpressionVisitor.
// As ExpressionVisitor detects the usage of Magic.Swap,
// it has to check the actual expression(ClassB.DtoExpression),
// and rebuild it as MemberInitExpression & NewExpression,
// and the bindings have to be mapped to correct places.
return Magic.Rebuild(dtoExpression);
}
The other way is to start using only Expression class(ditching the LINQ). This way you can write the queries from zero, and reusability will be nice, however, things get harder & you lose type safety. Microsoft has nice reference about dynamic expressions. If you structure everything that way, you can reuse a lot of the functionality. Eg, you define NewExpression and then you can later reuse it, if needed.
The third way is to basically use lambda syntax: .Where, .Select etc.. This gives you definitely better "reusability" rate. It doesn't solve your problem 100%, but it can help you to compose queries a bit better. For example: from.MyCList.Select(dtoCSelector)
I have a ViewModel with a String property and the following Data Annotation :
Edit to work with string
[DataType(DataType.Date, ErrorMessage="Not Working !!!")]
public String StringBirthDate1 { get; set; }
That's my view
#Html.EditorFor(model => model.StringBirthDate1 )
#Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.StringBirthDate1)
If I run my application and put an invalid Date like '---' or 29.02.1900 I don't get any validation error !
Ok I've given up trying to use built-in MVC tools for data validation !
I did a custom Validation Attribute :
public class ValidDateStringAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
DateTime dtout;
if (DateTime.TryParse(value.ToString(), out dtout ))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Here is my View Model decorated with the custom attribute :
[ValidDateString(ErrorMessage="Invalid date format")]
public String BirthDate1 { get; set; }
Works like a charm :-)
It seems to me, that [DataType(DataType.Date, ErrorMessage="Not Working !!!")] working when it attached to string property. Try to use:
[DataType(DataType.Date, ErrorMessage="Not Working !!!")]
puplic string StringBirthDate1{get;set;}
public DateTime BirthDate1
{
get{return DateTime.Parse(StringBirthDate1);}
set{StringBirthDate1 = value.ToString();}
}
I didn't like any of the solutions I found so I kept poking at possibilities until I came up with one I do like. I added a regular expression validator utilizing the regular expression from this article: http://answers.oreilly.com/topic/226-how-to-validate-traditional-date-formats-with-regular-expressions/
[Required(ErrorMessage = "Birthdate is required. [MM/DD/YYYY]")]
[RegularExpression(#"^([1-9]|0[1-9]|1[0-2])[- / .]([1-9]|0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])[- / .](1[9][0-9][0-9]|2[0][0-9][0-9])$", ErrorMessage = "Birthdate must be in MM/DD/YYYY format.")]
public Nullable<DateTime> Birthdate { get; set; }
The result is, if the field is blank I get the required error message and if anything is in the field, but it is not a valid date, I get the regular expression message.
I might add that it seems very silly that [DataType] doesn't accept an error message. I tried exactly like the original author of this thread. That would have been logical and intuitive.
I am using the example at The Complete Guide To Validation In ASP.NET MVC 3 to create a RequiredIf validation attribute (it's about 1/3 down the page under the heading of "A more complex custom validator"). It all works fine with the exception of one scenario, and that is if I have the need to validate against a complex type. For example, I have the following model:
public class MemberDetailModel
{
public int MemberId { get; set; }
// Other model properties here
public MemberAddressModel HomeAddress { get; set; }
public MemberAddressModel WorkAddress { get; set; }
}
public class MemberAddressModel
{
public bool DontUse { get; set; }
// Other model properties here
[RequiredIf("DontUse", Comparison.IsEqualTo, false)]
public string StreetAddress1 { get; set; }
}
The problem is that when the attribute validation for the StreetAddress property is rendered, it get's decorated with the attribute of data-val-requiredif-other="DontUse". Unfortunately, since the address is a sub-type of the main model, it needs to be decorated with a name of HomeAddress_DontUse and not just DontUse.
Strangely enough, the validation works fine for server-side validation, but client-side unobtrusive validation fails with an JS error because JS can't find the object with a name of just "DontUse".
Therefore, I need to find a way to change the ModelClientValidationRequiredIfRule method to know that the property it is validating is a sub-type of a parent type, and if so, prepend the ParentType_ to the "otherProperty" field (e.g. otherProperty becomes HomeAddress_DontUse.
I have tried passing in typeof(MemberAddressModel) as a parameter of the attribute, but even when debugging the attribute creation, I can't seem to find any reference to the parent type of HomeAddress or WorkAddress from that type.
Based on the suggestion from The Flower Guy, I was able to come up with the following which seems to work. I simply modified the following in the customValidation.js file:
jQuery.validator.addMethod("requiredif", function (value, element, params) {
if ($(element).val() != '') return true;
var prefix = getModelPrefix(element.name); // NEW LINE
var $other = $('#' + prefix + params.other); // MODIFIED LINE
var otherVal = ($other.attr('type').toUpperCase() == "CHECKBOX") ? ($other.attr("checked") ? "true" : "false") : $other.val();
return params.comp == 'isequalto' ? (otherVal != params.value) : (otherVal == params.value);
});
I also added the following method to that file (within the JQuery block so as to be only privately accessible):
function getModelPrefix(fieldName) {
return fieldName.substr(0, fieldName.lastIndexOf(".") + 1).replace(".","_");
}
Cannot do it exactly right now, but the problem is in the client javascript function:
jQuery.validator.addMethod("requiredif" ...
The js is not sophisticated enough to cope with complex view models where there may be a model prefix. If you take a look at Microsoft's jquery.validate.unobstrusive.js (in the Scripts folder over every MVC3 application), you will find some useful methods including getModelPrefix and appendModelPrefix. You can take a similar approach and change the requiredIf validation method - take a look at the equalto method in jquery.validate.unobstrusive.js for a helping hand.
There are certain properties in my application that I need to set dynamically whether they are required or not, therefore I can not use the [Required] atribute of Data Annotations.
Maybe this is not the best way to achieve what I want. So I will accept glady anny suggestions in that regard.
I have overridden the DataAnnotationsModelMetadataProvider with:
public class DynamicFieldsMetadataProvider : DataAnnotationsModelMetadataProvider
{
public override IEnumerable<ModelMetadata> GetMetadataForProperties(object container, Type containerType)
{
if (containerType == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("containerType");
if (!typeof(DynamicFieldDataItem).IsAssignableFrom(containerType))
foreach (var metadataProperty in base.GetMetadataForProperties(container, containerType))
yield return metadataProperty;
else
foreach (var metadataProperty in base.GetMetadataForProperties(container, containerType))
{
var dynamicField = (DynamicFieldDataItem)container;
if (metadataProperty.PropertyName == "DataFieldValue")
metadataProperty.IsRequired = dynamicField.IsRequired;
yield return metadataProperty;
}
}
}
This is just a concept test, once I make it work, I will change it to something dynamic and more object oriented, but so far, with just being able to set the MetadataModel for the property DataFieldValue to IsRequired = true I can get going.
With this I successfully set in a dynamic way the IsRequired property in true (I thought, with this would be enough!), and when I debugg in my view:
#Html.EditorFor(model=>model.DataFieldValue)
The property DataFieldValue is declared like this:
public class DynamicFieldDataItem
{
public string DataFieldValue { get; set; }
public bool IsRequired{ get; set; }
}
I can see that the Metadata, has the property IsRequired in true, but when the "DataFieldValue" is rendered the "validator" is not there, and of course the validation doesn't work.
To make sure that there wasn't a problem on the configuration of my project, I checked web.config and the inclusion of the javascripts for validation, all is properly configured. What's more, If I add the attribute Required to my property, like this:
public class DynamicFieldDataItem
{
[Required]
public string DataFieldValue { get; set; }
public bool IsRequired{ get; set; }
}
The validation works perfectly!
Can anyone give me a hint? Or tell me what i am doing wrong?
Thanks!
For validations that advanced I recommend you look at FluentValidation for MVC
http://fluentvalidation.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=mvc
you can install it into your project using NuGet, and you can create custom validation classes with it.
I believe you need both a custom ModelMetadataProvider and a custom ModelValidatorProvider for this to work. From my experience they don't seem to leverage each other and both seem to setup different validation.
MVC 3, EntityFramework 4.1, Database First, Razor customization:
I have an old database that sometimes uses Int16 or Char types for a field that must appear as a CheckBox in the MVC _CreateOrEdit.cshtml View. If it is an Int, 1=true and 0=false. If it is a Char, "Y"=true and "N"=false. This is too much for the Entity Framework to convert automatically. For the Details View, I can use:
#Html.CheckBox("SampleChkInt", Model.SampleChkInt==1?true:false)
But this won't work in place of EditorFor in the _CreateOrEdit.cshtml View.
How to do this? I was thinking of a custom HtmlHelper, but the examples I've found don't show me how to tell EntityFramework to update the database properly. There are still other such customizations that I might like to do, where the MVC View does not match the database cleanly enough for EntityFramework to do an update. Answering this question would be a good example. I am working on a sample project, using the following automatically generated (so I can't make changes to it) model class:
namespace AaWeb.Models
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public partial class Sample
{
public int SampleId { get; set; }
public Nullable<bool> SampleChkBit { get; set; }
public Nullable<short> SampleChkInt { get; set; }
public Nullable<System.DateTime> SampleDate { get; set; }
public string SampleHtml { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> SampleInt { get; set; }
public Nullable<short> SampleYesNo { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public byte[] ConcurrencyToken { get; set; }
}
}
I figured it out. Do not need a model binder or Html Helper extension:
In _CreateOrEdit.cshtml, I made up a new name SampleChkIntBool for the checkbox, and set it according to the value of the model SampleChkInt:
#Html.CheckBox("SampleChkIntBool", Model == null ? false : ( Model.SampleChkInt == 1 ? true : false ), new { #value = "true" })
Then, in the [HttpPost] Create and Edit methods of the Sample.Controller, I use Request["SampleChkIntBool"] to get the value of SampleChkIntBool and use it to set the model SampleChkInt before saving:
string value = Request["SampleChkIntBool"];
// #Html.CheckBox always generates a hidden field of same name and value false after checkbox,
// so that something is always returned, even if the checkbox is not checked.
// Because of this, the returned string is "true,false" if checked, and I only look at the first value.
if (value.Substring(0, 4) == "true") { sample.SampleChkInt = 1; } else { sample.SampleChkInt = 0; }
I believe a custom model binder would be in order here to handle the various mappings to your model.
ASP.NET MVC Model Binder for Generic Type
etc
etc
Here is the way to go from checkbox to database, without the special code in the controller:
// The following statement added to the Application_Start method of Global.asax.cs is what makes this class apply to a specific entity:
// ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(AaWeb.Models.Sample), new AaWeb.Models.SampleBinder());
// There are two ways to do this, choose one:
// 1. Declare a class that extends IModelBinder, and supply all values of the entity (a big bother).
// 2. Declare a class extending DefaultModelBinder, and check for and supply only the exceptions (much better).
// This must supply all values of the entity:
//public class SampleBinder : IModelBinder
//{
// public object BindModel(ControllerContext cc, ModelBindingContext mbc)
// {
// Sample samp = new Sample();
// samp.SampleId = System.Convert.ToInt32(cc.HttpContext.Request.Form["SampleId"]);
// // Continue to specify all of the rest of the values of the Sample entity from the form, as done in the above statement.
// // ...
// return samp;
// }
//}
// This must check the property names and supply appropriate values from the FormCollection.
// The base.BindProperty must be executed at the end, to make sure everything not specified is take care of.
public class SampleBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override void BindProperty( ControllerContext cc, ModelBindingContext mbc, System.ComponentModel.PropertyDescriptor pd)
{
if (pd.Name == "SampleChkInt")
{
// This converts the "true" or "false" of a checkbox to an integer 1 or 0 for the database.
pd.SetValue(mbc.Model, (Nullable<Int16>)(cc.HttpContext.Request.Form["SampleChkIntBool"].Substring(0, 4) == "true" ? 1 : 0));
// To do the same in the reverse direction, from database to view, use pd.GetValue(Sample object).
return;
}
// Need the following to get all of the values not specified in this BindProperty method:
base.BindProperty(cc, mbc, pd);
}
}