I'm working on a project where we have multiple UI (view) models with DataAnnotations attributes for validation, mainly for input such as required fields, length, regular expressions, etc):
[Required]
public int Order { get; set; }
[Required]
[MaxLength(150)]
public string Title { get; set; }
The controller checks the ModelState to make sure objects are valid before handing them to the service layer.
Now, the service layer also validates the objects in order to accommodate for future changes that may require a new controller to support other output formats or another utility to import objects in batch.
My question is: Knowing that there should be a separation of concerns where controllers deal with UI models and Service layers deal with Business Objects, and therefore, I wouldn't like to pass UI model objects to the service layers, what's the preferred way to reuse the validation rules in the UI model objects? Or should they be replicated with code in the service layer? or should the DataAnnotations be added to the Business Objects too?
I'm using EF model first, so I don't see a simple way to add these annotations to the auto-generated POCOs.
Why not use FluentValidation? That way you can create a validator for each view model and run them in your UI layer and service layer if needs be. It also removes the need to decorate your view models with validation attributes. http://fluentvalidation.codeplex.com/
Related
I am using the database first approach with entity framework, when i used to work on the default template the database tables were mapped using the ObjectContext, so i used to create #partial classes & [MetadataType(typeof ) to apply the data annotation ,, but when i start using the Dbcontext code generation template to map the database tables i found that it will create .tt folder in my Model area were i find that i can apply the data annotation directly to the .cs classes themselves without the need to create partial classes as in objectcontext case.
Currently the data annotations are working fine,, but would my approach cause me problems i am not aware of and i should create partial classes as i used to do with the Objectcontext ?
BR
In general, you shouldn't edit generated code because changes you make will be overwritten on re-generation. This is why most generators emit partial classes.
The best practice for your situation would be to create a new file in your solution with another partial class declaration. In that file, add the MetadataType attribute to the class, and add your property-level validation attributes to the "buddy" class (the one referenced in the attribute). This allows you to use validation attributes on the generated properties and, should your model/database change, you can still re-generate your model classes without losing them.
For example, your new file might look something like:
[MetadataType(typeof(PersonMetadata))]
partial class Person
{
// Add logic to the generated class in here.
public string FullName
{
get { return FirstName + " " + LastName; }
}
}
class PersonMetadata
{
// Add attributes to the generated properties in here.
[Required]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
Create the same partial classes to define your metadata OR you can simply reverse engineer your existing database using the Entity Framework Power Tools so you have POCO classes. Then you can use the fluent API (you'll see the validations it adds for you) instead of data annotations to give you server side validation.
If you want client side, then you can still apply them to your models, as they wont be regenerated every time you compile .
however - I would recommend you create ViewModels and use AutoMapper to map between your EF objects and viewmodels. Then you can apply your annotations directly to your ViewModels.
My understanding of your situation is that you reverse-engineered your Database-First style to a Code-First style. If your context class inherits from DbContext, you are in Code-First style now (unless there is some strange hybrid possible, which I don't know about!).
In code-first, there is really no point of creating partial classes for data annotations, IMO.
I'm creating an MVC 3 application that needs to establish data validation rules at runtime based on external data (e.g. Required, MinimumLength, MaximumLength). It seems natural to use Data Annotations in MVC 3, however the property attributes that provide validation metadata are set at compile-time.
Is there a pattern to use Data Annotations with metadata provided at runtime?
Example:
public string Text { get; set; }
public void SetIsRequired(string propertyName, bool required)
{
// Somehow find the property 'propertyName' and create/remove a RequiredAttribute
// on that property
}
...
SetIsRequired("Text", true);
I'm aware of TypeDescriptor, but don't see an option to modify attributes of a property of an instance (only class level attributes on an instance, or property level attributes for a type).
It seems natural to use Data Annotations in MVC 3
Not for me. I never really liked data annotations due to their declarative nature. And doing validation in a declarative way limits capabilities. I have always liked and use FluentValidation.NET.
You could probably use the IDataErrorInfo interface (which MVC can consume) to write your custom, dynamic, validation rules.
I have several thoroughly unit-tested and finely crafted rich DDD model classes, with final immutable invariants and integrity checks. Object's instantiation happens through adequate constructors, static factory methods and even via Builders.
Now, I have to provide a Spring MVC form to create new instances of some classes.
It seems to me (I'm not an expert) that I have to provide empty constructor and attribute's setters for all form's backing classes I want to bind.
So, what should I do ?
Create anemic objects dedicated to form backing and transfer the informations to my domain model (so much for the DRY principle...) calling the appropriate methods / builder ?
Or is there a mecanisms that I missed that can save my day ? :)
Thank you in advance for your wisdom !
The objects that are used for binding with the presentation layers are normally called view models and they are DTOs purposed toward displaying data mapped from domain objects and then mapping user input back to domain objects. View models typically look very similar to the domain objects they represent however there are some important differences:
Data from the domain objects may be flattened or otherwise transformed to fit the requirements of a given view. Having the mapping be in plain objects is easier to manage than mappings in the presentation framework, such as MVC. It is easier to debug and detect errors.
A given view may require data from multiple domain objects - there may not be a single domain object that fits requirements of a view. A view model can be populated by multiple domain objects.
A view model is normally designed with a specific presentation framework in mind and as such may utilize framework specific attributes for binding and client side validation. As you stated, a typical requirement is for a parameterless constructor, which is fine for a view model. Again, it is much easier to test and manage a view model than some sort of complex mapping mechanism.
View models appear to violate the DRY principle, however after a closer look the responsibility of the view model is different, so with the single responsibility principle in mind it is appropriate to have two classes. Also, take a look at this article discussing the fallacy of reuse often lead by the DRY principle.
Furthermore, view models are indeed anemic, though they may have a constructor accepting a domain object as a parameter and a method for creating and updating a domain object using the values in the view model as input. From experience I find that it is a good practice to create a view model class for every domain entity that is going to be rendered by the presentation layer. It is easier to manage the double class hierarchy of domain objects and view models than it is to manage complex mapping mechanisms.
Note also, there are libraries that attempt to simplify the mapping between view models and domain objects, for example AutoMapper for the .NET Framework.
Yes you will need to create Objects for the form to take all the input, and the update the your model with this objects in one operation.
But I wont call this objects anemic (especially if you do DDD). This objects represent one unit of work. So this are Domain Concepts too!
I solved this by creating a DTO Interface:
public interface DTO<T> {
T getDomainObject();
void loadFromDomainObject(T domainObject);
}
public class PersonDTO implements DTO<Person> {
private String firstName;
private String lastName;
public PersonDTO() {
super();
}
// setters, getters ...
#Override
public Person getDomainObject() {
return new Person(firstName, lastName);
}
#Override
public void loadFromDomainObject(Person person) {
this.firstName = person.getFirstName();
this.lastName = person.getLastName();
}
// validation methods, view formatting methods, etc
}
This also stops view validation and formatting stuff from leaking into the domain model. I really dislike having Spring specific (or other framework specific) annotations (#Value, etc) and javax.validation annotations in my domain objects.
What is the difference between a MVC Model object, a domain object and a DTO?
My understanding is:
MVC Model object:
Models the data to be displayed by a corresponding view. It may not map directly to a domain object, i.e. may include data from one or more domain objects.
Client side
May contain business logic. Eg. validations, calculated properties, etc
No persistence related methods
Domain object:
An object that models real-world object in the problem domain like Reservation, Customer, Order, etc. Used to persist data.
Server side
No business logic
DTO (Data Transfer Object):
An object used to transfer data between layers when the layers are in separate processes, e.g. from a DB to a client app. Allows a single transaction across the wire rather than multiple calls when fetching data corresponding to multiple domain objects. A DTO contains just data and accessor methods and there is no logic present. The data is for a particular DB transaction, so it may or may not directly map to a domain object as it may include data from one or more domain objects.
Used on both server and client sides as it is passed between layers
No business logic
No persistence related methods
So, the questions:
Is above understanding correct? Am I missing some key points?
Are there any reasons not to use Domain objects as the MVC Model assuming that the Model objects do not require extra business logic?
Are there any reasons not to use DTOs as the MVC Model assuming that the Model objects do not require extra business logic?
Domain and model objects are essentially the same, and may contain business logic. Depending on implementation, domain and DTO objects may be equivalent if you remove business logic from the model into a service class.
Often a key variant of the DTO is the View Model, which is used purely to transfer data between the domain model and the view, although often a View Model may contain logic, although this should be purely UI logic.
The Domain and DTO can also be your "model" objects - you can have a view to render the details of the "Customer" domain object.
A domain object can have business logic to enforce the properties of the domain entity. validation is one such case. The domain object by itself does not contain persistence related methods, but it can have meta-data (like annotations) to support persistence
the POJO programming model makes it possible to use the same object as your domain, DTO and model objects - essentially, you will not be implemented any extraneous interfaces that will only apply to one layer but does not apply to others.
A DTO = is an object that carries data between processes.
But the most interesting part is that, it does not have any behavior except for storage and retrieval of its own data!!!
Sticking with the MVC methodology...
Domain = subject of your entire application.
Model = contains the (programming languages objects : EX: C# objects) to make up the universe of your application.
They can obvioussly have behaviour and properties(see difference with DTO).
Often an application (a light one) can have one model - case in which your model is exactly your domain.
Another model can be, a totaly different object type, that is processing another one. Both of them, in this case are part of your domain, and are named "domain models - objects".
Hopefully this answer is exhaustive and makes it all clear for you !
My understing (in a big short) is as follows:
(MVC) Model object:
represent some things in a some usage context eg. PersonEditModel, PersonViewModel or just PersonModel
has no business logic
can be subject of some valdation logic etc.
used to provide data from one application layer to another eg. MVC Controller <-> MVC View
Domain object:
represents some business object (real world object in the problem domain)
has business logic
do not allow invalid object state, has methods to properly change object's state
used to encapsulate business logic related to it
have not to be used to persist data (or even should not)
DTO (Data Transfer Object):
similar to Model object but should have flat structure
only simple type properties/fields (strings, numbers, datetimes, booleans)
used to transfer data cross application boundaries eg. between web server and web browser
Any definition for most of the objects is various based on place of using of objects:
Model: is a general definition for using object in client or server.
Model View : is a object using in client most of the time.
Domain Object : is a object using in server and transfering data to the database.
Data Transfer Object(DTO) : is a object that transfer data from one object to another object, specially in getting data in API Call(for example: in api GET Method call for getting data you must not to give database models to client, for this purpose you use dto).
Notice: the definitions are true most of the time but in some situations arent't practical.
MVC and DDD can be used together. What we call "Models" both in DDD and MVC are virtually the same: abstractions. Using pseudo-code we can illustrate a few examples.
Model View Controller (MVC)
The Model View Controller ARCHITECTURE separates the software into three parts:
The Model Layer
The Model layer from the MVC Architecture is where the logic resides. In this layer we have our models and business logic.
class Car {
String color;
String year;
Cat(color, year) {
this.color = color;
this.year = year;
}
//getters & setters
}
A simple Car abstraction.
class CarService {
save(car) {
if(car.getColor() != null && car.getYear() != null) {
methodToSave(car);
} else {
throwsException();
}
}
find(car) {
return methodToFind(car);
}
update(car) {
assertThatExists(car);
methodToSave(car);
}
delete(car) {
assertThatExists(car);
methodToDelete(car);
}
}
A simple CRUD for Car using a Service
The View Layer
The View layer is where the user interface resides. Here's where the user can interact with the system, which will then trigger the Controllers on actions performed, which will then inform the Model layer and request data. The View Layer can reside either in the client-side of the application or the server-side of the application (ie: JSF (Java Server Faces) as Server-Side, ReactJS as Client-Side). By any means, even if the View layer resides on the client side, the client will need to request the server-side for sending requests. This may be done by HTTP requests for a Web-Based Application.
<theCarPage>
<theCar>
getTheCarOnLoad();
</theCar>
</theCarPage>
A pseudo-page for the Car.
The Controller Layer
The Controller layer basically receives input from the View and then convert and send the data to the Model Layer and vice-versa.
class CarController {
#OnLoadingTheCarPage
getTheCarOnLoad() {
return theCar();
}
}
The method to load the Car.
Domain Driven Design (DDD)
Domain Driven Design is a concept:
DDD lays it's foundations in the concept that classes, class variables and class methods must match it's core business domain.
Domain Driven Design Resides into the "M"
In this case, when MVC is applied, the Domain Driven Design resides into the Model Layer of the MVC Architecture. As explained before, the Model Layer is where the Business Logic of the application resides.
Either if you have entities or not, they still are Models. A Model is just an abstraction of something in the real world. A cat can be a Model if abstracted:
class Cat {
String color;
String age;
Cat(color, age) {
this.color = color;
this.age = age;
}
//getters & setters
}
Simple Cat abstraction. It is a Model of Cat.
DDD Entities
In Domain Driven Design we have Entities, that are also classified as Models. The difference between them is that Entities are identifiable. If you have a class that is identifiable and can be persisted, then it's an Entity. An Entity still, is a Model.
#AnEntity
#ThisCanBePersisted
class Cat {
#ThisIsAnId
#ThisValueIncrementsAutomatically
#PersistentProperty
Long id;
#PersistentProperty
String color;
#PersistentProperty
String age;
Cat(color, age) {
this.color = color;
this.age = age;
}
//getters & setters
}
A simple Entity. An Entity is a Model.
Data Transfer Objects (DTO)
Data Transfer Objects have no logic inside them and the only use to them is to be containers for transferring data from one endpoint to another. Usually Enterprise Entities are not Serializable by nature, so we need a way to send only the data that we need to be sent to a client.
Since a Model could have sensible data or simply data we don't want to share in a request for a fetch, for instance, then considering our Cat Model, we could create a DTO that does not share the Cat's ID:
class CatDTO {
String color;
String age;
//getters & setters
}
A Data Transfer Object for Cat. We only need it's properties and something to get and set the properties. We don't want to share it's ID.
So if we, for instance, had to request a list of all cats from our client using REST, then we would request the endpoint that responds with our CatDTO instead of our Cat Entity:
[
Cat {
"color": "yellow",
"age": "1"
},
Cat {
"color": "black",
"age": "4"
}
]
And that would be all the data that our client could see.
1) No, It is a definition of ViewModel. MVC Model Object and Domain Object both are same.
2) Domain Models (Objects) are always present, business logic is optional
3) If there is no business logic in Domain Object then automatically it becomes DTO.
I am working on a project which requires different validation sets for the same model, and we're trying to find the best solution to handle it.
A simplified example could be using our Customer DTO:
public class Customer
{
[Required]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[Required]
public string LastName { get; set; }
[Required] // Only required on some views
public string Title { get; set; }
}
In our first view, all fields are required, as they're shown in the DTO using DataAnnotations.
In our second view, FirstName and LastName may be required, but Title is optional, and may not even be represented on the view.
The complication comes in, that we want to have validation rules live in our service layer (so that we can provide an API at a later point utilizing the same validation), which can access the data annotations, and validate against them, reporting back up to the UI if they don't validate.
So far, the winning method is:
Every view has a dedicated viewmodel, which the DataAnnotations exist on.
The viewmodel then maps our domain objects using something like Automapper.
The domain objects are then passed to the repositories and services to have actions taken upon them.
This also means:
Validation would not occur in the service layer, since by the time the objects got there, they would be domain objects instead of viewmodels.
Is there some better way that we should be handling this for an enterprise application? We have yet to find a solution.
You can't cram all your validation into one place when it's context-specific. Use your winning method, but also have your entity services do appropriate validation in that layer.