Why does T4MVC uses virtual for controller methods? Changing a
public ActionResult Details (string Id)
to:
public virtual ActionResult Details (string Id)
I have already seen other questions about T4MVC but didn't understand why.
Usually if a framework/library needs virtual methods (see also Nhibernate) it means somewhere/sometime your methods will be overridden.
So T4MVC marks your action methods as virtual because it's overrides them.
Lets take a simple controller:
public partial class HomeController : Controller
{
public virtual ActionResult Index()
{
ViewBag.Message = "Welcome to ASP.NET MVC!";
return View();
}
}
If you go to the generated HomeController.generated.cs under the T4MVC.tt you will find a generated class which inherits from your controller and overrides your action method:
[GeneratedCode("T4MVC", "2.0"), DebuggerNonUserCode]
public class T4MVC_HomeController: MvcApplication8.Controllers.HomeController {
public T4MVC_HomeController() : base(Dummy.Instance) { }
public override System.Web.Mvc.ActionResult Index() {
var callInfo = new T4MVC_ActionResult(Area, Name, ActionNames.Index);
return callInfo;
}
}
I haven't used T4MVC so I don't know why and for what purpose T4MVC creates this generated class.
The only benefit I can see for making them virtual is to allow the developer to 'Go to Implementation/Definition' where The T4MVC helpers are used. This works because the Controller's type on the static Helper 'MVC' is the base controller type.
public static partial class MVC
{
public static HomeController Home = new T4MVC_HomeController();
}
So in the following snippet, Go to Definition on the Action Name will go to Base Implementation:
#Url.Action(MVC.Home.Index())
+1 David Ebbo for such an intuitive feature. I was mind blown when I realized this!
PS: this does not work for the parameterless actions added via the partial function, instead they navigate to the generated code, unfortunately.
Related
I have a method inside a controller that creates ViewData. For example this one
private void CreateFKViewData(OSQDCOL osqdcol, OSADCOL osadcol, IList<OSADCOL> targetTBLcols)
{
...
ViewData[osadcol.ColName] = new SelectList(SelectListItems, "key", "value", SelectListItems.First().Key);
}
If that method is placed inside the controller everything works as expected. I want to move that method outside my controller and place it into a different class in my BLL layer. The problem is that ViewData is not accessible outside the scope of the controller.
Any ideas?
I'm assuming you're using ASP.NET MVC and C#. Not sure it's a great idea to spread around concerns that a controller would normally do into classes outside of the controller, but suffice to say that the reason for your issue is that ViewData is made available by the fact that your controller class inherits from Controller which in turn inherits from ControllerBase (which is where ViewData is provided). So let's say you wanted to call a method in another class from your controller, and you wanted that method to be able to manipulate ViewData. Consider the following:
public class TestController : Controller
{
// GET: Test
public ActionResult Index()
{
var externalclass = new SomeRandomClass(this);
externalclass.DoStuff();
return View();
}
}
public class SomeRandomClass
{
ControllerBase _callingController = null;
public SomeRandomClass(ControllerBase callingController)
{
this._callingController = callingController;
}
public void DoStuff()
{
this._callingController.ViewData["hello"] = "world";
}
}
I am playing around with the idea of having a base controller that uses a generic repository to provide the basic CRUD methods for my API controllers so that I don't have to duplicate the same basic code in each new controller. But am running into problems with the routing attribute being recognized when it's in the base controller. To show exactly what the problem I'm having I've created a really simple WebAPI controller.
When I have a Get method in the main Controller and it inherits from the ApiController directly I don't have any problems and this works as expected.
[RoutePrefix("admin/test")]
public class TestController : ApiController
{
[Route("{id:int:min(1)}")]
public string Get(int id)
{
return "Success";
}
}
When I move the Get method into a base controller it is returning the contents of the 404 page.
[RoutePrefix("admin/test")]
public class TestController : TestBaseController
{
}
public class TestBaseController : ApiController
{
[Route("{id:int:min(1)}")]
public string Get(int id)
{
return "Success";
}
}
Some more interesting notes:
I can access the action at GET /Test/1. So it is finding it based on the default route still.
When I try to access POST /admin/test, it returns the following JSON
{
"Message":"No HTTP resource was found that matches the request URI 'http://test.com/admin/test'.",
"MessageDetail":"No type was found that matches the controller named 'admin'."
}
Does anyone know of a way to get the routing to work with attributes from a base controller?
Attribute routes cannot be inherited. This was a deliberate design decision. We didn't feel right and didn't see valid scenarios where it would make sense to inherit them.
Could you give a more realistic scenario as to where you would want to use this?
[Update(3/24/2014)]
In the upcoming 5.2 release of MVC Web API, there is going to be an extensibility point called System.Web.Http.Routing.IDirectRouteProvider through which you can enable the inheritance scenario that you are looking for here. You could try this yourself using the latest night builds(documentation on how to use night builds is here)
[Update(7/31/2014)]
Example of how this can be done in Web API 2.2 release:
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes(new CustomDirectRouteProvider());
//---------
public class CustomDirectRouteProvider : DefaultDirectRouteProvider
{
protected override IReadOnlyList<IDirectRouteFactory>
GetActionRouteFactories(HttpActionDescriptor actionDescriptor)
{
// inherit route attributes decorated on base class controller's actions
return actionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes<IDirectRouteFactory>
(inherit: true);
}
}
Using Web API 2.2, you can:
public class BaseController : ApiController
{
[Route("{id:int}")]
public string Get(int id)
{
return "Success:" + id;
}
}
[RoutePrefix("api/values")]
public class ValuesController : BaseController
{
}
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes(new CustomDirectRouteProvider());
public class CustomDirectRouteProvider : DefaultDirectRouteProvider
{
protected override IReadOnlyList<IDirectRouteFactory>
GetActionRouteFactories(HttpActionDescriptor actionDescriptor)
{
return actionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes<IDirectRouteFactory>
(inherit: true);
}
}
as outlined here: http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/releases/whats-new-in-aspnet-web-api-22
Got it.
[Route("api/baseuploader/{action}")]
public abstract class BaseUploaderController : ApiController
{
[HttpGet]
public string UploadFile()
{
return "UploadFile";
}
}
[Route("api/values/{action}")]
public class ValuesController : BaseUploaderController
{
[HttpGet]
public string Get(int id)
{
return "value";
}
}
One caveat here is that the route action paramter must be the same as the action name. I could not find a way to get around that. (You cannot rename the route with a RouteAttribute)
I have an MVC 3 app and I have created a generic wrapper object, which has some navigation properties and the wrapped object of T, whose values I'm editing/displaying.
public class NavigationViewModel<T>
{
public T Model { get; set; }
public NavigationHelper NavigationHelper { get; set; }
public NavigationViewModel() { }
public NavigationViewModel(T model, NavigationHelper helper)
{
this.Model = model;
this.NavigationHelper = helper;
}
}
My controller resolves this object nicely in an action like this:
public ActionResult Foo(NavigationViewModel<Bar> viewModel)
Code in my view looks like this:
#Html.EditorFor(model => model.Model.SomeProperty)
My colleague said that that code is not nice to read. I already have a strongly typed view, the Model and this Model has another property called Model. He suggested to rename the Model property to ViewModel and I agreed with his reasoning.
Now, the code with the renamed properties does not work anymore: NavigationViewModel viewModel is null. So I changed the signature of the HttpPost method to the following and it works again:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Foo(NavigationHelper helper, Bar viewModel)
I like this very much! I can directly access my viewModel in code, the code in the view makes sense and the helper object does not get in the way. I haven't seen this convention before and I guess it worked before because of the naming convention. Using a property called Model hinted at how to resolve the object. Without that property, it couldn't resolve it anymore.
I would like to adopt this for other kinds of helpers that contain view-specific properties, like select-lists or other properties that I otherwise might have put in my ViewBag. Would you guys recommend this approach or will I run into trouble later on using this?
I think I have a really simple answer for you, just don't name your action parameter viewModel, so change:
public ActionResult Foo(NavigationViewModel viewModel)
public ActionResult Foo(NavigationViewModel model)
Or any other parameter name that does not collide with your ViewModel property on your NavigationViewModel class.
When a view model is created you can populate the options (e.g. used in a dropdown list) into a setter property of the view model.
The problem is that when that view model is later passed as a parameter (by the framework!) into an action method, those property values has not become automagically
repopulated, so if you need to redisplay the form because of validation errors, you need to repopulate those options again.
One potential solution, which I am asking for specifically in this question, is how to make the MVC framework instantiate the view model with constructor injection, which would provide the view model constructor with an implementation of some kind of data access object (e.g. a repository) that can be used for retrieving the options when they are requested by the view (e.g. in the helper method "DropDownListFor") ?
I think the solution might have something to do with implementations of IModelBinderProvider or IModelBinder but after having experimented with these things from example code snippets here and there on the net, I am still looking for a completely working example, with downloadable executable code without any missing piece of how putting all things together.
If you are looking for some alternative discussion about how to populate a select list, e.g. with "Dependecy Lookup" instead of "Dependecy Injection" you may want to check out the following discussion:
Best way to populate SelectList for ViewModel on GET/POST
Best way to populate SelectList for ViewModel on GET/POST
Some days ago I wrote the following follow-up-question in that thread about the "Dependecy Injection" I am now looking for in this thread:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8674525/310457
(which provides a code example about the problem I am looking for a solution of)
But instead of hoping that someone will find that old thread with a less specific title, I have created this new question with a more specific subject about what I am looking for.
And I will also provide a link from that thread into this new question for anyone that want to follow-up regarding this specific solution I am looking for.
I'm assuming you want to have your ViewModels automatically injected with something via their Constructor - for example some kind of configuration object that the View will use to determine what to show. I'm also assuming that this approach is causing a "No parameterless constructor defined for this object" error when MVC tries to automatically create and bind a model instance, from the arguments of your Controller Action. Let's also then assume that we will use a DI framework to inject the SiteConfig object into our Controllers automatically at runtime.
This means that the only problem we have to solve is how to get the injected object from our Controller into its Actions' ViewModels when they are automatically bound.
So let's define a base model for others to inherit from.
BaseViewModel
public class BaseViewModel
{
public ISiteConfig SiteConfig { get; set; }
public BaseViewModel(ISiteConfig siteConfig)
{
this.SiteConfig = siteConfig;
}
}
And now let's create a model that inherits from it.
IndexViewModel
public class IndexViewModel : BaseViewModel
{
public string SomeIndexProperty { get; set; }
public IndexViewModel (ISiteConfig siteConfig) : base(siteConfig) {}
}
And now let's define a Base Controller that our Controllers will inherit from.
BaseController
public abstract class BaseController : Controller
{
protected BaseController(ISiteConfig siteConfig)
{
_siteConfig = siteConfig;
}
private readonly ISiteConfig _siteConfig;
public ISiteConfig SiteConfig
{
get
{
return _siteConfig;
}
}
}
Now we define our actual controller.
HomeController
public HomeController: BaseController
{
public HomeController(ISiteConfig siteConfig): base(siteConfig) {}
}
Assuming we're using Ninject for DI, Ninject would be configured to automatically create the Controller and pass a concrete ISiteConfig object into its Constructor at runtime.
Now we add our Action to the Controller.
Index Action
public ActionResult Index(IndexViewModel model)
{
return View(model);
}
And so this is the point where without doing anything else, MVC will explode with a "Parameterless Constructor" error if you try to call the Index Action, because MVC can't find a ViewModel constructor that takes no arguments.
And so, the answer. We need to override the default ModelBinder.
BaseViewModelBinder
public class BaseViewModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType)
{
if (modelType == typeof(BaseViewModel) || modelType.IsSubclassOf(typeof(BaseViewModel)))
{
var baseControl = controllerContext.Controller as BaseController;
if (baseControl == null)
{
throw new Exception("The Controller must derive from BaseController");
}
var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(modelType, baseControl.SiteConfig);
bindingContext.ModelMetadata = ModelMetadataProviders.Current.GetMetadataForType(() => instance, modelType);
return instance;
}
else
{
return base.CreateModel(controllerContext, bindingContext, modelType);
}
}
}
And we need to set this as the default model binder in global.asax.cs :
protected void Application_Start()
{
...
ModelBinders.Binders.DefaultBinder = new BaseViewModelBinder();
}
That's all. As you can see, when you view the Index Action now, MVC will use our custom model binder. It will realise that the IndexViewModel derives from BaseViewModel, and so will attempt to spin up an IndexViewModel instance using the ISiteConfig it can find in the Action's Controller (because the Controller derives from BaseController).
An existing RedirectToAction signature is
RedirectToAction(string action, RouteValueDictionary routeValues);
I wish to make.
RedirectToAction(RouteValueDictionary routeValues);
So I created the following
public static class MvcControllerExtension
{
public static RedirectToRouteResult RedirectToAction
(this Controller controller, RouteValueDictionary routeValues)
{
return controller.RedirectToAction
(routeValues["Action"].ToString(), routeValues);
}
}
However, the IDE for that code is showing a Recursive Call because it can only see itself.
It does not see this signature.
I have included using System.Web.Mvc; in the extension class.
How can I fix this? thanks.
Additional:
Here is the extention source code.
Note the recursive symbol.
(Sorry, SO is having issues uploading images to imgur.com. Will retry soon).
Why do an extension? RedirectToAction is a helper method in the Controller class, so why not create yours as a protected method in your base controller class?
public abstract class MyControllerBase : Controller
{
protected RedirectToRouteResult RedirectToAction(RouteValueDictionary routeValues)
{
return RedirectToAction(routeValues["Action"].ToString(), routeValues);
}
}
What namespace is MvcControllerExtension in - it must be in the same namespace or have the import for it.