I am having issues using the same code in two scenarios:
From a ribbon button call revisionRequested which in turn calls removeOptions and
from the form OnLoad, call removeOptions only.
The code below is my work around, but I what I originally tried was to pass the primaryControl param from revisionRequested to removeOptions in which I made formContext = primaryControl I got an error.
function revisionRequested(primaryControl) {
var formContext = primaryControl;
formContext.getAttribute("statuscode").setValue(100000009); // Revision Requested
removeOptions(0, primaryControl);
Xrm.Navigation.openAlertDialog('Your revision request has been been submitted');
}
function removeOptions(executionContext, primaryControl) {
var formContext = null;
executionContext == 0 ? formContext = primaryControl : formContext = executionContext.getFormContext();
var statusCode = formContext.getAttribute("statuscode").getText();
var statusControl = formContext.getControl("header_statuscode");
if (Xrm.Page.ui.getFormType() !== 1 && statusCode.includes('Revision')) {
statusControl.removeOption(1);
statusControl.removeOption(100000000);
statusControl.removeOption(100000001);
statusControl.removeOption(100000002);
statusControl.removeOption(100000003);
statusControl.removeOption(100000003);
statusControl.removeOption(100000004);
statusControl.removeOption(100000005);
statusControl.removeOption(100000006);
statusControl.removeOption(100000007);
statusControl.removeOption(100000008);
}
}
I believe what you want is polymorphism in JavaScript for removeOptions method, one with executionContext signature to use from form load, another one with primaryControl signature to use from ribbon. These two signatures are not same of course, and passing execution context from the form while registering event handlers have only choice to send it as first parameter.
What you did is valid workaround to utilize the reusable method in two different places with all limitations and platform design into consideration.
Read this discussion for more understanding.
Related
As a sample of what I'm trying to accomplish, here in MapPost I'm manually parsing the body of the HTTP request.
// Program.cs
using System.Text.Json;
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var app = builder.Build();
Type[] types = new[] { typeof(SampleDto1), typeof(SampleDto2), <other unknown types> };
foreach (var type in types)
{
app.MapPost(type.Name, async (HttpContext httpContext) =>
{
var request = await JsonSerializer.DeserializeAsync(
httpContext.Request.Body,
type,
new JsonSerializerOptions(JsonSerializerDefaults.Web),
httpContext.RequestAborted);
return Results.Ok(request);
});
}
app.Run();
internal record SampleDto1(string Input) { }
internal record SampleDto2(string Input) { }
This works, yay! However, ... ASP.NET Core's MVC has all these sophisticated ModelBinding functionality and I really would like to use that. Because that opens up possibilities for binding to querystring parameters and other sources instead of only the request body.
Basically I want to replace the call to JsonSerializer with a call to framework code.
I've been browsing the ASP.NET Core source code and at first the DefaultModelBindingContext looked promising. However, I soon stumbled on some internal classes which I couldn't access from my code.
Long story short, .. is it at all possible to plug-in to MVC's model binding from application code?
Update: Although it doesn't show from the initial question, the solution should work dynamically with any request type. Not only SampleDto1 and SampleDto2. That's why explicit parameter binding from Minimal API won't do the trick.
You could try the codes :
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc;
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var app = builder.Build();
builder.Services.AddSingleton<Service>();
app.MapPost("/{id}", ([FromRoute] int id,
[FromQuery(Name = "p")] int page,
[FromBody]SampleDto1 sample1,
[FromBody] SampleDto2 sample2,
[FromServices] Service service,
[FromHeader(Name = "Content-Type")] string contentType)
=> { });
app.Run();
internal record SampleDto1(string Input) { }
internal record SampleDto2(string Input) { }
You could read the official document for more details:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/minimal-apis?view=aspnetcore-6.0#explicit-parameter-binding
I am working on New web application which is Using Web API as Business Layer and Knock out Js as client side frame work to binding. I have a requirement like Pass the certain search criteria to Web API Controller and get the Data from DB and Create and Send the Excel/MS-Word file on the fly as a downloadable content.
I am new to both the Web API and Knock out, I am searching on the Net and get partial solution and I am looking here to get more optimal solution for this use case.
Below is my code:
Client:
function GetExcelFile() {
var $downloadForm = $("<form method='POST'>")
.attr("action", baseUrl + "api/FileHandler/GetExcelFileTest")
.attr("target", "_blank")
$("body").append($downloadForm);
$downloadForm.submit();
$downloadForm.remove();
}
On Button Click having this code snippet to create a form on the fly and Get response from Web API.
Web API Code:
[HttpPost]
public HttpResponseMessage GetExcelFileTest()
{
var response = new HttpResponseMessage();
//Create the file in Web App Physical Folder
string fileName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString() + ".xls";
string filePath = HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath(String.Format("~/FileDownload/{0}", fileName));
StringBuilder fileContent = new StringBuilder();
//Get Data here
DataTable dt = GetData();
if (dt != null)
{
string str = string.Empty;
foreach (DataColumn dtcol in dt.Columns)
{
fileContent.Append(str + dtcol.ColumnName);
str = "\t";
}
fileContent.Append("\n");
foreach (DataRow dr in dt.Rows)
{
str = "";
for (int j = 0; j < dt.Columns.Count; j++)
{
fileContent.Append(str + Convert.ToString(dr[j]));
str = "\t";
}
fileContent.Append("\n");
}
}
// write the data into Excel file
using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(fileName.ToString(), false))
{
sw.Write(fileContent.ToString());
}
IFileProvider FileProvider = new FileProvider();
//Get the File Stream
FileStream fileStream = FileProvider.Open(filePath);
//Set response
response.Content = new StreamContent(fileStream);
response.Content.Headers.ContentDisposition = new ContentDispositionHeaderValue("attachment");
response.Content.Headers.ContentDisposition.FileName = fileName;
response.Content.Headers.ContentType = new MediaTypeHeaderValue("application/ms-excel");
response.Content.Headers.ContentLength = fileStream.Length;
//Delete the file
//if(File.Exists(filePath))
//{
// File.Delete(filePath);
//}
return response;
}
Using this code I am able to download an Excel File. Still I have some more open questions to make this code optimal.
Q1) I need to Pass view model(Search Criteria) to API Controller Using the dynamically create form ? (OR) Any better ways to get Excel file from Web API.
Q2) I am sure it's not a good way to create Excel file in Physical folder and Get FileStream and send as a respone. How to do on the fly ? OR any other optimal ways.
Please suggest me to do better ways.. Thanks
Q1) You can quite easily pass the view-model, but it's also similarly easy to pull that information from the posted form.
Passing the view-model
If you want to pass the view-model to a WebAPI method then remember that said method must take as a parameter an object with the same properties. So if the object that you wish to post back always has the same properties then it's trivial to build a server-side class with the same properties and receive an instance of that class.
To post back this client-side object you can do something like this (uses jQuery, which I see you're already using):
$.ajax({
contentType: "application/json",
data: my-view-model.toJSON(),
type: "POST",
url: baseUrl + "api/FileHandler/GetExcelFileTest" });
I haven't attached any success or error handlers here because the JavaScript isn't concerned with the return, but you might wish to add some handlers in case an exception is thrown in your WebAPI method. I recommend doing that by adding the following to the above $.ajax() call:
statusCode: {
500: function(jqXhr, textStatus, errorThrown) {
},
[other HTTP error codes]
}
[Read the documentation for the $.ajax() call here.]
One additional tip here: when you call my-view-model.toJSON() (or self.toJSON(), if called from within your view-model) Knockout will first of all determine if your view-model contains a toJSON() method. If so, it will use this method; if not then it will call the browser's implementation of this function. However, the browser's implementation of this function will serialise everything, which can be particularly length if you have, for example, long select lists in your view-model. Therefore, if you wish only to send back a subset of the view-model's properties then define your own toJSON function on your view-model like so:
var toJSON = function() {
return {
Property1: ...,
Property2: ...
};
}
[Read more about converting a view-model to JSON here.]
Posting the form as-is
If you don't wish to expend the effort to do the view-model wiring then you can just post the form exactly like you have in your question. You can then retrieve the values from the form by using
Request.Form["my-field"];
Q2)
You're probably right in pointing out that it's not wise to create the Excel file in the physical folder. However, as far as I'm aware (interested if someone says otherwise) you'll have to use a 3rd-party library for this. Microsoft do offer an Office automation library but I have a suspicion that you also need Office to be installed at the same location.
Creating Excel spreadsheets dynamically is something I've done several times but for the actual creation I use Aspose.Cells, which requires a license. Although I do create a physical version and then delete it, I believe Aspose.Cells may allow you to create it as a stream. But take a look around, there are certainly other libraries which offer Excel automation.
Returning the File from the Server
Calling $.ajax({...}) alone won't allow you to present the user with a "Save as..." dialog. What I do in this situation - and this won't work if you wish to store the generated file only in memory (FileStream, for example) and not on the file system - is to respond to the $.ajax({...}) call with a filename for the generated file.
The next step is to direct the user towards that filename.
So I have something like this in my JavaScript:
$.ajax({
dataType: "json",
type: "GET", // you'll probably want POST in your case
url: ...,
success: function(response) {
if (response && response.Uri && response.Uri.length) {
window.location.href = [root URL] + response.Uri;
}
}
});
But don't be alarmed by this redirect. That window.location.href points directly to a folder on the server, no controller needed. Because the browser then receives a file it presents the "Save as..." dialog while remaining on the same webpage.
I have an http module where I'm adding a response filter below for compression. This works for all API calls except for 1, the call to MetaData. If I remove the [BreezeController] decoration it works fine. I think it has to do with action filter attribute that converts the string return type into an HttpResponse return type with string content.
The error I'm getting is " Exception message: The stream state of the underlying compression routine is inconsistent."
I've done some testing where a method thats defined to return an HttpResponse works fine. So I think its the scenario where the method is defined to return string, and then the action filter changes it to HttpResponse at runtime.
Any ideas how I can get this to work?
Here's the response filter being added in BeginRequest:
HttpApplication app = (HttpApplication)sender;
// Check the header to see if it can accept compressed output
string encodings = app.Request.Headers.Get("Accept-Encoding");
if (encodings == null)
return;
Stream s = app.Response.Filter;
encodings = encodings.ToLower();
if (encodings.Contains("gzip"))
{
app.Response.Filter = new GZipStream(s, CompressionMode.Compress);
app.Response.AppendHeader("Content-Encoding", "gzip");
}
Don't know the specifics of what you're doing but I know that the [BreezeController] attribute strips out filters and adds back just the ones that breeze wants.
One approach might be to define a separate controller (ModelMetadataController) that only serves the metadata. This controller doesn't have the [BreezeController] attribute; it's a plain old Web API controller.
Then you create a "Breeze controller" (ModelController) with all of the usual methods except the Metadata method.
You call the metadata controller from the client during app launch via MetadataStore.fetchMetadata just to get metadata.
Once you have populated a metadataStore in this fashion, you use it in your EntityManager which sends query and save requests to the "real" Web API data controller.
The client code might look something like this:
var ds = new breeze.DataService({
serviceName: 'breeze/Model' // the breeze query & save controller
});
var ms = new MetadataStore({
namingConvention: breeze.NamingConvention.camelCase, // assuming that's what you want
});
ms.addDataService(ds); // associate the metadata-to-come with the "real" dataService
var manager = new breeze.EntityManager({
dataService: ds,
metadataStore: ms
});
// the fun bit: fetch the metadata from a different controller
var promise = ms.fetchMetadata('breeze/ModelMetadata') // the metadata-only controller!
return promise; // wait on it appropriately
I've implemented ReCaptcha in MVC3 using ReCaptcha.net NuGet package http://recaptchanet.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=How%20to%20Use%20Recaptcha%20in%20an%20ASP.NET%20MVC%20Web%20Application. All working well, except I'd like to see if I can implement this as Async as it is sometimes quite slow, and we may have some volume on these pages.
The instructions say
RecaptchaVerificationResult recaptchaResult = await recaptchaHelper.VerifyRecaptchaResponse();
if (recaptchaResult != RecaptchaVerificationResult.Success)
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "Incorrect captcha answer.");
}
however, this is using the MVC4 await syntax. Is there a way I can use this method within the MVC3 async framework?
I did try a quick hack, converting the controller to AsyncController naming the method with an Async suffix and wrapping the entire action in a Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { ... }); while using the non-async syntax, but RecaptchaVerificationHelper recaptchaHelper = this.GetRecaptchaVerificationHelper(); complains about a lack of HTTPContext.
So, can anyone help me with doing ReCaptcha asynchronously in MVC3
In the end, I've dropped using the NuGet package, and simply process the captcha's using the code below, binding the recaptcha fields in the controller method.
public bool ProcessCaptcha(string recaptcha_challenge_field, string recaptcha_response_field)
{
const string verifyUrl = "http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/verify";
var res = true;
var ip = Request.UserHostAddress;
if (ip == "::1") ip = "127.0.0.1";
var myParameters = string.Format("privatekey={0}&remoteip={1}&challenge={2}&response={3}", Config.CaptchPriv, ip, recaptcha_challenge_field, recaptcha_response_field);
using (WebClient wc = new WebClient())
{
wc.Headers[HttpRequestHeader.ContentType] = "application/x-www-form-urlencoded";
string HtmlResult = wc.UploadString(verifyUrl, myParameters);
var split = HtmlResult.Split('\n');
if (split[0] == "false") res = false;
}
return res;
}
With this in place, I split my original controller method into a Async/Completed pair, and wrapped the work it does in Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { ... }), following the pattern outlined here http://www.deanhume.com/Home/BlogPost/mvc-asynchronous-controller---the-basics/67 which seems to work perfectly.
We've discovered a strange new bug in a GWT application I'm maintaining, and I'm not sure when it became an issue. Possibly with a new Firefox version.
We're sending a POST request to the server using a FormPanel, essentially like many examples I've seen online. But since we actually want a PUT request, one of the hidden input parameters is named "method" and has a value of "put".
Now, when I look at the request in Fiddler coming from Firefox, it is being transformed into a GET request with all the parameters in the QueryString. In IE and Chrome, the parameters are in the body of a POST request.
I've displayed the value of FormPanel.getMethod() in an alert, and in IE and Chrome the string "post" is displayed, whereas in firefox it is showing "object HTMLInputElement". Unfortunately, hosted mode debugging does not work with this project.
It obviously looks like the FormPanel's getMethod() function is returning the hidden input parameter named method instead of the actual form's method in Firefox.
Technically I should avoid changing the servlet as this is from an OpenSource project that we use, though I've found I can fix the issue by changing the hidden input parameter's name to "_method" on both ends.
Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I can't find anything in Google.
UPDATE: We're using GWT 2.3 in case that helps
Some insight can be found here Are the PUT, DELETE, HEAD, etc methods available in most web browsers?
I would also suggest using XMLHttpRequest. In this case you [most probably] don't have to change anything on the server side.
In case if you use Submit button, you can write in its clickHandler function:
submitMyForm(yourTextBox.getText(), self);
// self - is the instance of main class (named UploadForm here), needs to be passed here for future reference
and then some more (you can adapt this for your needs):
private native void submitMyForm(String text, UploadForm handler)/*-{
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append("textValue", text);
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
var upload = xhr.upload;
readyStateChangeHandler = function () {
if (xhr.readyState == 4) {
if (xhr.status == 200) {
var serverResponse = eval(xhr.responseText); // optional
handler.#com.project.UploadForm::onUploadIsDone(Lcom/google/gwt/core/client/JavaScriptObject;)(serverResponse);
} else {
handler.#com.project.UploadForm::onUploadFailed(I)(status);
}
}
};
xhr.onreadystatechange = readyStateChangeHandler;
xhr.open("PUT", yourActionUrlHere);
xhr.send(formData);
}-*/;