Is it possible to execute some C# code when checking the "Is Approved" checkbox for a Member?
Our site has a registration form which programmatically creates a user in the Members section, however the new Members must be approved by an admin and we would like to send an email to the Member when they are approved.
I think what you will need to do is look at MemberService.Saving and MemberService.Saved events and attach a custom event handler. See Determining if an entity is new for information on determining if you are dealing with a new or existing member. Below is copied from documentation:
In v6.2+ and 7.1+ you can use the extension method on any implementation of IEntity (which is nearly all models returned by the Umbraco Services):
var isNew = entity.IsNewEntity();
How it works
This is all possible because of the IRememberBeingDirty interface. Indeed the name of this interface is hilarious but it describes exactly what it does. All entities implement this interface which is extremely handy as it tracks not only the property data that has changed (because it inherits from yet another hilarious interface called ICanBeDirty) but also the property data that was changed before it was committed.
From here you should be able to check the property data you are interested in and send your email accordingly.
Related
I have designed my application to have two business context.
MenuBuilder - which build a menu from the input.
MenuRenderer - which render a menu from the above model.
User first send all the items to MenuBuilder and all the information are stored as a MenuBuilder domain object, an identifier is returned to the user.
And now the user want to render the menu with different color schemes. The user send the ID back and also schema details to MenuRenderer.
MenuRenderer has no idea what the menu looks like, so it has to go MenuRepository to fetch the Menu, and build a MenuRenderer object.
This might have violated the DDD principal by having that cross domain problem. Some options that I can think of.
Option 1
The user use the id to fetch the Menu from MenuBuilder and use that to create a new request for MenuRenderer, basically copy most of the items and put it into a new struct. This is probably the best isolation but it also seems unnecessary to duplicate the items. If performance is an issue, this might not be a good idea, because now you will have to send a large object instead of an ID.
Option 2
The user pass the ID to MenuRenderer, the MenuRenderer reaches out to MenuBuilder via an interface to fetch the Menu item. The MenuRenderer then do the mapping and map all the fields back to the domain context.
However, I am no sure who should perform the mapping.
Option 2.1
Define a repository interface, GetMenu(id) MenuRenderer.Menu, the database will figure how to do the mapping. And the MenuRenderer app layer just need to call GetMenu(id) to get a MenuRenderer.Menu object and pass it down to the domain logic.
Option 2.2
The MenuRenderer AppLayer calls a repostiory that returns MenuBuilder.Menu object, and perform mapping.
I have a lot of code like this
additional_params = {
date_issued: pending.present? ? pending.date_issued : Time.current,
gift_status: status,
date_played: status == "Opened" ? Chronic.parse("now") : (opened.present? ? opened.date_played : nil),
email_template: service&.email_template,
email_text: service&.email_text,
email_subject: service&.email_subject,
label: service&.label,
vendor_confirmation_code: service&.vendor_confirmation_code
}
SomeService.new(reward, employee: employee, **additional_params).create
The same pattern applies to many models and services.
What is the name of this pattern?
How to refactor the current solution?
Is there a gem to solve this kind of solution? Like draper or something else
To me, that looks a bit like a god object for every type of entity. You expect your service to take care of everything related to your entity. The entity itself just acts as a data container and isn't responsible for its data. That's called an anemic model.
First of all, you need to understand that there can be several representations of the same entity. You can have several different classes that represent a user. On the "List user" page, the class contains just a subset of the information, maybe combined with information from the account system (last login, login attempt etc). On the user registration page, you have another class as it's not valid to supply all information for the user.
Those classes are called data transfer objects. Their purpose is to provide the information required for a specific use case and to decouple the internal entity from the external API (i.e. the web page).
Once you have done that, your service classes will start to shrink and you need fewer custom parameters for every method call.
Now your service class has two responsibilities: To manage all entities and to be responsible for their business rules.
To solve that, you should start to only modify your entities through behaviors (methods) and never update the fields directly. When you do so, you will automatically move logic from your service class to your entity class.
Once that is done, your service classes will be even cleaner.
You can read about Domain Driven Design to get inspired (no need to use DDD, but get inspired by how the application layer is structured in it).
You can try the builder pattern. I am not familiar with a ruby gem, but you can find information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder_pattern and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface
I am using MVVM light and figured out since that the ViewModelLocator can be used to grab any view model and thus I can use it to grab values.
I been doing something like this
public class ViewModel1
{
public ViewModel1()
{
var vm2 = new ViewModelLocator().ViewModel2;
string name = vm2.Name;
}
}
This way if I need to go between views I can easily get other values. I am not sure if this would be best practice though(it seems so convenient makes me wonder if it is bad practice lol) as I know there is some messenger class thing and not sue if that is the way I should be doing it.
Edit
static ViewModelLocator()
{
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => SimpleIoc.Default);
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<ViewModel1>();
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<ViewModel2>();
}
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Performance",
"CA1822:MarkMembersAsStatic",
Justification = "This non-static member is needed for data binding purposes.")]
public ViewModel1 ViewModel1
{
get
{
return ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<ViewModel1 >();
}
}
Edit
Here is a scenario that I am trying to solve.
I have a view that you add price and store name to. When you click on the textbox for store name you are transferred to another view. This view has a textbox that you type the store you are looking for, as you type a select list get populated with all the possible matches and information about that store.
The user then chooses the store they want. They are transferred back to the view where they "add the price", now the store name is filled in also.
If they hit "add" button it takes the price, the store name, and the barcode(this came from the view BEFORE "add price view") and sends to a server.
So as you can see I need data from different views.
I'm trying to understand what your scenario is. In the MVVMlight forum, you added the following context to this question:
"I have some data that needs to be passed to multiple screens and possibly back again."
For passing data between VMs, I would also - as Matt above - use the Messenger class of MVVMLight as long as it is "fire and forget". But it is the "possibly back again" comment that sounds tricky.
I can imagine some scenarios where this can be needed. Eg. a wizard interface. In such a case I would model the data that the wizard is responsible for collecting and then bind all Views to the same VM, representing that model object.
But that's just one case.
So maybe if you could provide a little more context, I would be happy to try and help.
Yes, you can do this, in as much as the code will work but there is a big potential issue you may run into in the future.
One of the strong arguments for using the MVVM pattern is that it makes it easier to write code that can be easily tested.
With you're above code you can't test ViewModel1 without also having ViewModelLocator and ViewModel2. May be that's not too much of a bad thing in and of itself but you've set a precedent that this type of strong coupling of classes is acceptable. What happens, in the future, when you
From a testing perspective you would probably benefit from being able to inject your dependencies. This means passing, to the constructor--typically, the external objects of information you need.
This could mean you have a constructor like this:
public ViewModel1(string vm2Name)
{
string name = vm2Name;
}
that you call like this:
var vm1 = new ViewModel1(ViewModelLocator.ViewModel2.name);
There are few other issues you may want to consider also.
You're also creating a new ViewModelLocator to access one of it's properties. You probably already have an instance of the locator defined at the application level. You're creating more work for yourself (and the processor) if you're newing up additional, unnecessary instances.
Do you really need a complete instance of ViewModel2 if all you need is the name? Avoid creating and passing more than you need to.
Update
If you capture the store in the first view/vm then why not pass that (ID &/or Name) to the second VM from the second view? The second VM can then send that to the server with the data captured in the second view.
Another approach may be to just use one viewmodel for both views. This may make your whole problem go away.
If you have properties in 1 view or view model that need to be accessed by a second (or additional) views or view models, I'd recommend creating a new class to store these shared properties and then injecting this class into each view model (or accessing it via the locator). See my answer here... Two views - one ViewModel
Here is some sample code still using the SimpleIoc
public ViewModelLocator()
{
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => SimpleIoc.Default);
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IMyClass, MyClass>();
}
public IMyClass MyClassInstance
{
get{ return ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<IMyClass>();}
}
Here is a review of SimpleIOC - how to use MVVMLight SimpleIoc?
However, as I mentioned in my comments, I changed to use the Autofac container so that my supporting/shared classes could be injected into multiple view models. This way I did not need to instantiate the Locator to access the shared class. I believe this is a cleaner solution.
This is how I registered MyClass and ViewModels with the Autofac container-
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
var myClass = new MyClass();
builder.RegisterInstance(myClass);
builder.RegisterType<ViewModel1>();
builder.RegisterType<ViewModel2>();
_container = builder.Build();
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => new AutofacServiceLocator(_container));
Then each ViewModel (ViewModel1, ViewModel2) that require an instance of MyClass just add that as a constructor parameter as I linked initially.
MyClass will implement PropertyChanged as necessary for its properties.
Ok, my shot at an answer for your original question first is: Yes, I think it is bad to access one VM from another VM, at least in the way it is done in the code example of this question. For the same reasons that Matt is getting at - maintainability and testability. By "newing up" another ViewModelLocator in this way you hardcode a dependency into your view model.
So one way to avoid that is to consider Dependency Injection. This will make your dependencies explicit while keeping things testable. Another option is to use the Messenger class of MVVMLight that you also mention.
In order to write maintainable and testable code in the context of MVVM, ViewModels should be as loosely coupled as possible. This is where the Messenger of MVVMLight can help. Here's a quote from Laurent on what Messenger class was intended for:
I use it where decoupled communication must take place. Typically I use it between VM and view, and between VM and VM. Strictly speaking you can use it in multiple places, but I always recommend people to be careful with it. It is a powerful tool, but because of the very loose coupling, it is easy to lose the overview on what you are doing. Use it where it makes sense, but don't replace all your events and commands with messages.
So, to answer the more specific scenario you mention, where one view pops up another "store selection" view and the latter must set the current store when returning back to the first view, this is one way to do it (the "Messenger way"):
1) On the first view, use EventToCommand from MVVMLight on the TextBox in the first view to bind the desired event (eg. GotFocus) to a command exposed by the view model. Could be eg. named OpenStoreSelectorCommand.
2) The OpenStoreSelectorCommand uses the Messenger to send a message, requesting that the Store Selector dialog should be opened. The StoreSelectorView (the pop-up view) subscribes to this message (registers with the Messenger for that type of message) and opens the dialog.
3) When the view closes with a new store selected, it uses the Messenger once again to publish a message that the current store has changed. The main view model subscribes to this message and can take whatever action it needs when it receives the message. Eg. update a CurrentStore property, which is bound to a field on the main view.
You may argue that this is a lot of messaging back and forth, but it keeps the view models and views decoupled and does not require a lot code.
That's one approach. That may be "old style" as Matt is hinting, but it will work, and is better than creating hard dependencies.
A service-based approach:
For a more service-based approach take a look at this recent MSDN Magazine article, written by the inventor of MVVMLight. It gives code examples of both approaches: The Messenger approach and a DialogService-based approach. It does not, however, go into details on how you get values back from a dialog window.
That issue is tackled, without relying on the Messenger, in this article. Note the IModalDialogService interface:
public interface IModalDialogService
{
void ShowDialog<TViewModel>(IModalWindow view, TViewModel viewModel, Action<TViewModel> onDialogClose);
void ShowDialog<TDialogViewModel>(IModalWindow view, TDialogViewModel viewModel);
}
The first overload has an Action delegate parameter that is attached as the event handler for the Close event of the dialog. The parameter TViewModel for the delegate is set as the DataContext of the dialog window. The end result is that the view model that caused the dialog to be shown initially, can access the view model of the (updated) dialog when the dialog closes.
I hope that helps you further!
I want to create a subscriber that gets triggered when the user tries to access the resource (which is a custom content-type). So, the object is not being added, modified, nothing, is just being traversed. Something like a Zope View Event.
So, basically, suppose a custom content type has a custom workflow (two states: private and viewed). The initial state is private. This content type is only going to be created programatically, using _createObjectByType by anonymous users. Suppose an object called myobjet was added, programatically, to the root folder of my Plone site.
What I want is: when the user access
http://localhost:8080/Plone/myobject
...it automatically changes the state of the workflow of this object to viewed. The url http://localhost:8080/Plone/myobject is going to be a custom view, not the default base_edit.
Which event should I use? I tried IEndRequestEvent and IBeforeTraverseEvent from this list and none of them work: the handler is not being called for my custom object interface.
I've tried other events with my custom object interface (like IObjectEditedEvent), and, for this event, my handler is called when I edit an object that implements the interface. But using IEndRequestEvent and IBeforeTraverseEvent doesn't call the handler.
IEndRequestEvent and IBeforeTraverseEvent only work when I set the subscriber to all interfaces:
<subscriber
for="*
zope.app.publication.interfaces.IBeforeTraverseEvent"
handler=".subscriber.myhandler"
/>
And when I make myhandler print the object and the event in this situation, it shows:
<PloneSite at Plone>
<zope.app.publication.interfaces.BeforeTraverseEvent object at 0xd52618c>
If the solution is to write an event myself, is there an easy tutorial for this?
You might want to have a look at http://pypi.python.org/pypi/plone.validatehook.
Make sure you bind the event to the right interface. If you bind it to "Interface" (as described on the plone.validatehook pypi page) the event will get called for every single request. In order to restrict the event to contentish objects you can do the following:
from Products.CMFCore.interfaces import IContentish
#adapter(IContentish, IPostValidationEvent)
def RedirectMember(object, event):
...
(Edit: I removed my first answer because it didn't work)
Not sure what this subscriber is supposed to do, but if the object is not being modified, added or whatsoever than I must suspect it will just be viewed...so why not just use the __call__ method of the items view (or the __update__ method if you are using five.grok/dexterity)?
My company is developing a GUI application that allows users to query a legacy database system and have the results displayed back to them on the screen (the results just come back in a blob of plain-text). I'm struggling with the best way to structure the interaction between the user interface and the domain layer, especially validation of user input.
Basic Use Case
User selects a query to run from a menu in the application.
The application code displays the data entry form for the selected query.
The user enters the parameters for the query. If a field contains invalid data, it is immediately highlighted in red, and its tooltip text is changed to display an error message (i.e. if you are entering a Person query, and you enter a date of birth in the future, for example, the date of birth field will immediately turn red).
When the user clicks Run Query, the application runs a second validation pass; this second validation pass is required in order to run validation checks that involve multiple fields. If the this validation check passes, and all the fields are valid, the query is sent; otherwise, the user is prompted to fix any remaining errors.
My Current Validation/Error Reporting Strategy
Currently, I'm using domain-centric validation, but the overall design seems messy to me and maybe a little too over-engineered. A brief overview of the current design:
Domain layer: I have one class per query. Every query class contains a collection of IQueryField objects that hold the values entered by the user. Each query class implements a common IQueryMessage interface, which defines (among other things) a Validate method. This method is called to enforce message-level validation rules (i.e. rules that must examine the state of multiple fields at once). The IQueryField interface also defines a 'Valdate' method (among other things). This is to support per-field validation rules.
Per-field validation: To handle the per-field validation and error reporting, the data entry code binds each input control to an IQueryField; whenever the user changes the value of a control, it calls the the corresponding IQueryField's Validate method, which in turn fills a Notification object (just a collection of strings at the moment) with any errors detected in the value entered by the user. The user interface code then checks the Notification object and changes the appearance of the user control to indicate an error condition, if necessary.
Message-level validation: When the user tries to send a query, the application calls the Validate method on the IQueryMessage instance associated with the data entry form (at this point, the data binding code has also ensured all the message's fields have been populated from the input controls on the form, and the per-field validation code has been run). If there are any validation errors, the user interface displays them at the top of the form. If there are no errors, the data entry form is closed and the query is serialized and sent over the network.
Is Something Wrong Here?
I feel like something isn't "right" here. I have a few issues with the current design:
I would like the domain-level validation code to indicate the name of any fields that are in error, bur I don't want to hard-code the UI label captions into the domain classes. One possibility I thought of was to have the domain-level Validate methods generate messages with a field placeholder, such as "%s cannot be in the future", and have the UI code fill in the placeholder with the correct label.
The IQueryMessage and IQueryField interfaces both have a method called Validate. I'm thinking this should be extracted into a separate interface, (IValidatable perhaps), but I wonder if I am making things needlessly complex.
I'm using VB6, so I can't use inheritance in my classes (VB6 supports classes but not inheritance). I can only define and implement interfaces. Because of this, and because of the way my current interfaces are designed, I'm duplicating a lot of boiler-plate code in my implementation classes. I am thinking of solving this with an inversion-of-control approach. For example, I was thinking of defining a single concrete QueryField class, which could be initialized with a collection of IValidationRule instances that define what validation rules to use, then the QueryField.Validate() method would just collect the results of executing each rule. This way, the validation rules can be tailored to each field, but the QueryField class can handle all the common field-related stuff (field name, field length, required/not required checks, etc.).
How Can I Improve This?
I'm interested in any refactoring suggestions and hints on improving the current design. Also, I'm not necessary tied down to domain-centric validation; other suggestions are welcome. The main motivation behind using domain-centric validation was to keep increase encapsulation, and allow query message and field objects to be used in a non-GUI environment, without having to rewrite all the validation logic.
When you initialize a QueryField object, pass a label to it from the GUI. Then it's the UI that is responsible for setting the label name which seems reasonable to me.
I don't think this is necessary.
What you are describing doesn't really sound like IoC but rather just plain old composition. Since you can't even use inheritance this improvement seems to make sense. Generally you want to prefer composition to inheritance anyways. However if you are almost done with the work then I wouldn't bother refactoring this late in the game.