I am using xml annotations on my API endpoints which contain information about the endpoint responses as well as a summary for that endpoint.
On my request model, each property has a describing the property. This all works fine except for when I try to add a summary to an Enum.
For example, I have the following property in my class:
/// <summary>
/// Domain Model Class
/// </summary>
public DomainModelClass? AssetDomainModelClass { get; set; }
And DomainModelClass is an Enum
When I go to the swagger page, there is no description on AssetDomainModelClass
Additionally I looked at the json that is created, and it does not contain a description for the Enum field
But the summary works for all non Enum properties, such as the AssetId one right above my example. How can I get a summary to attach to Enum values?
I am using Swashbuckle.AspNetCore (6.0.7)
I hope you found this when you needed it, but for people like me:
services.AddSwaggerGen(options =>
{
options.UseInlineDefinitionsForEnums();
}
Related
I have a project work work with hundreds of grids. On one grid in particular, the original designer created a view and added it as a nested model inside our driver model. This is a problem because Kendo seems to not be able to detect the field type of a field nested this way. When it can't, it assumes the field is a string.
In my particular case, I have two fields that contain dates that we want to filter on, but the date filtering is broken because of this.
I was able to find numerous examples of specifying it in the data source, but only for jquery grids (one example: https://docs.telerik.com/kendo-ui/knowledge-base/use-nested-model-properties ). I can't convert this to mvc because the methods aren't lining up.
Any idea on how to do this in mvc? Note: I also tried just changing the UI on the filter to date and that didn't work either. I got a stack trace claiming date needed to be a string.
As far as I understand the model passed to the Grid's field is structured like this:
public class OrderViewModel
{
public int OrderID
{
get;
set;
}
public CityModel ShipCity
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class CityModel
{
public int CityID
{
get;
set;
};
public string CityName
{
get;
set;
};
}
Then you can utilize the ClientTemplate configuration to get the CityName to populate the column:
columns.Bound(p => p.ShipCity).ClientTemplate("#=ShipCity.CityName#");
For more information refer to the Kendo UI Templates article
or
this forum answer that shows how to set a default to a nested field in a Grid's DataSource Model configuration.
Unfortunately, according to Telerik , the fact is that you simply can't do what I was trying to do. The solution is to flatten the model. I pulled the questionable fields into notmapped fields in the master model.
The relevant part of their response:
In MVC the nested properties are properties to another Model. As the Telerik UI Grid needs a flat structure of data, the nested properties could be shown with the help of a ClientTemplate, but they will always be string typed.
In order to achieve the desired behavior, I would recommend making the pointed Date fields - part of the Main Model and using them as flat data out of the box.
Link: https://www.telerik.com/forums/kendo-mvc-wrapper-grid-how-do-i-specify-the-data-type-of-a-nested-model-field
The caveat here is you can't filter a linq-for-queries datasource to a notmapped field because it doesn't exist in it but in my case, a .toList() didn't cause any performance problems because the dataset was small, with only a few hundred records.
However, you can edit the incoming DatasourceRequest object to modify the filters and sorts to point at the sub model, after your controller read is hit.
I'm using OData v4 and the models are configured with the EdmModel Builder for our .NET Web API.
I have two models defined like this:
public class Customer
{
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
}
public class Order
{
public int OrderId { get; set; }
public string Category { get; set; }
public Customer OrderCustomer { get; set;}
}
These models have corresponding controllers and are registered as follows:
builder.EntitySet<Customer>("Customers")
.EntityType
.HasKey(x => x.CustomerId);
builder.EntitySet<Order>("Orders")
.EntityType
.HasKey(x => x.OrderId)
.Expand(
maxDepth: 2,
expandType: SelectExpandType.Automatic,
properties: nameof(Order.OrderCustomer));
I'm able to make OData requests to both these endpoints as follows:
/Customers/{Id} and
/Orders/{Id}.
I'm expecting that when I query the Orders, the nested EntitySet Customers will auto expand since I've set expandType: SelectExpandType.Automatic on the Order EntitySet. However, I can't get the CustomerOrder property to auto-expand on the Customer and I have to call the request with an expand parameter:
/Orders/{Id}?$expand=OrderCustomer.
I think this is because both Customer and Order are registered as EntitySets, so OData expects that an expand parameter be provided if they are nested. Is there a way to get the OrderCustomer property to auto-expand (i.e. without the need for the expand parameter to be provided)? My understanding of OData/ Edm Models is pretty elementary so any help is appreciated.
Your fluent configuration is correct, for OData v4, that will work for both collection and item queries.
If it is not working for you there are 3 possible issues:
You do not appear to be using the OData v4 URL convention for item queries, in v4 the expected URL is:
/Orders({Id})
This brings into question how you modified the router to support the v3 syntax, there are multiple variation on how to implement the v3 routes so it is possible that changes made in this area could affect the way that default expansion and selection is applied, or if it should apply.
You may not be including the navigation data in your data query. If the data is not retrieved from the data store, then it stands to reason that it will not be in the output recordset. If you are manually using the ODataQueryOptions.ApplyTo() to apply the user request to your query, then this will not take into account the configuration on the model, it will only apply thequery options that the caller has specified.
The caller might be specifying an Empty $expand= which will cancel out the auto configuration. Even if the originating caller has not specified any query options it is common enough for OData APIs to have standard or custom middleware running that might be manipulating the request query strings. To verify the URL is untampered, log it in your GET method handler and make sure the $expand is not specified.
As with the previous point, the ODataQueryOptions parameter in your GET method should NOT show any value for the SelectExpand if you want the auto configuration to be applied.
Finally, the last place to check is that you haven't overriden the default EnableQueryAttribute. If you have implemented your own custom implementation of EnableQueryAttribute then make sure that you still call the base implementation to correctly apply the ODataQueryOptions AND the schema defaults to the underlying IQueryable result.
In addition to the answer provided by Chris Schaller.
Another issue I had was caused by the casing on the property. For example, I have camelCasing enabled on the builder
builder.EnableLowerCamelCase();
This means the naming in the Expand on the configuration needed to be updated to match.
.Expand(
maxDepth: 2,
expandType: SelectExpandType.Automatic,
properties: "orderCustomer"); // <-- camelCase
This seems to be required even if EnablePropertyNameCaseInsensitive is enabled in the ODataOptions.
I've an ASP.NET MVC application using Fluent Validation. Basically there is a view model Book which has an author as a property on it, like:
class Book {
string Title { get; set; }
Author Author { get; set; }
...
}
class Author {
string Name { get; set; }
...
}
On the view there is a field for the Book.Author.Name.
#Html.EditorFor(m => m.Author.Name)
There is Fluent Validation rule set up for the Book view model something like this
RuleFor(book => book.Author.Name).NotEmpty();
Then I find that this validation won't be fired for the Book.Author.Name field on client side. When inspecting the field's HTML markup, I found that no validation data attributes have been generated. Seems like Fluent Validation cannot handle the multiple level structure properly to generate the client side validation markups. But after it is posted back to the server, the server side validation fires as expected for this field. How can I get the validation fired on the client side?
Eventually to work around this problem, I had to create a custom editor template for the Author class, and a separate Fluent Validator for the Author class with all the rules I needed for the properties on the Author class. This approach worked perfect in this case. The client side validation could be fired as expected this time, and so does the server side as well.
By the way, I've also tried to create a partial view instead of a custom editor template for the Author class. The client side validation was able to be fired, but after post back the partial view couldn't be bound to the Book.Author for the controller's action method.
I'm really lost trying to create custom generic validation messages for my MVC3 application.
I read many tutorials and the biggest part of them suggest one of these options:
Create an App_GlobalResources folder and inside that put my custom resource, them I change global.asax, passing the string name of my resource to DefaultModelBinder.ResourceClassKey property. Change the resource's build action to "Embeded Resource".
Right click the project, then go properties, click "Resources" tab and create your custom resource. Set it's access modifier to "Public".
The first one didn't work to me, I have the following keys in my resource:
DefaultModelBinder_ValueRequired, InvalidPropertyValue, PropertyValueInvalid, PropertyValueRequired
and none of them was used when my I tried to submit and form with empty value in a required attribute of my model.
I've put this code at global.asax Application_Start method:
DefaultModelBinder.ResourceClassKey = "My_Resource_Name";
With the second method, I've created an resource with the same keys as the first one. None of them was used by default when a property is invalid or empty (I've changed the ResourceClassKey in global.asax too, but without success). But when I added some parameters to data annotation in my model:
[Required(ErrorMessageResourceType = typeof(MyResourceFile), ErrorMessageResourceName = "MyCustomKey")]
When the attribute of that data annotation is empty, my message defined with "MyCustomKey" is used!
But I really don't want to manually set this to all my attributes, I want to replace the default error messages like: "The {0} field is required."
That message is part of DataAnnotations. The default message is compiled into the DataAnnotations assembly in the resource file under System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Resources.DataAnnotationsResources.resources and is RequiredAttribute_ValidationError=The {0} field is required. You can try to download the source, change that part and rebuild it.
There doesn't seem to be a simple global way of changing it. You could try this, otherwise it looks like you are stuck with adding your attribute to every field. Or use something like this:
public class SomeModel
{
[Required(ErrorMessage = "The article is required")]
public string Article { get; set; }
[StringLength(512, ErrorMessage = "Must be less than 512 characters.")]
public string URL { get; set; }
}
So, I am using ASP.NET MVC 3 and Entity Framework 4.1 (code-first).
I have a class like this:
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
[Range(18, 99)]
public int Age { get; set; }
}
The range validation is fired correctly. But, for example, in some situations I would like to change the range for the Age attribute. Or even turn it off. How could I do it without changing my Model class? Is this possible to made programatically?
You can use the IValidatableObject interface and define custom validation rules.
See my answer at:
Using Data Annotations to make a field required while searching for another in a form mvc 3
Its usually just a matter of implementing the interface and determine when to enforce your rules.
I just realised the solution for this case.
Eg. A user can have an authorization to create a 14 years old person.
Before save the Model, we can invoke DataContext.GetValidationErrors() and infer if the only error validation is that we want to disable, and then set
DataContext.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
So, this way we are able to save the model.
Yes, it is possible to inject validators programmatically. Altering existing validators presents separate issues, as some attributes are read-only, so you may have to delete and replace your existing validator.
You can add a class to work on the validators by following my answer to this question.