My MVC action method receives an entity object (Page) that the default model binder creates from form collection data. Some of the fields are wrong or null because they were not sent in the request to the server, for example I do not send "CreateDate" and the default model binder sets this property to some default value which I don't need.
Once the object is attached it of course tries to persist all the values (including invalid/not needed ones to the database). I could of course assign manually on a per property basis but was wondering if maybe I can somehow flag a property so it is not persisted when EntityState is set to modified and SaveChanges() is called..
public ActionResult SomeMethod(Page page)
{
page.ModifyDate = DateTime.Now;
_db.NewsPages.Attach(page);
_db.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(page, System.Data.EntityState.Modified);
_db.SaveChanges();
_db.Dispose();
}
The correct way to handle this is using different class for view model, attach empty entity to the context and assign real values per property (or let AutoMapper to handle this scenario) as #Darin suggested in the comment.
If you want to go your way you must not change state of the POCO entity but you must change state of every changed property:
public ActionResult SomeMethod(Page page)
{
page.ModifyDate = DateTime.Now;
_db.NewsPages.Attach(page);
ObjectStateEntry entry = _db.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(page);
entry.SetModifiedProperty("ChangedPropertyName");
// Do the same for all other changed properties
_db.SaveChanges();
_db.Dispose();
}
Related
Using ASP.NET MVC when I create my model, then a controller based on the model with CRUD operations, the CRUD views are generated. I added some code using Fluent API to require certain fields but for some reason the ModelState.IsValid passes even when these fields are not completed. What determines whether this passes or not? I thought it was based on your model property data types and other things like being required or maxlength, etc....
Also, I have manually added code to grab a list of Categories from the database and generate a checkbox for each one in the View. This is a navigation property for the Project model where there is a many-many relationship. To get the group of checked values in the Create(Project project) method in the controller I use:
var selected = Request["categories"].Split(',');
This however, throws the classic Object reference not set to an instance of an object error if no values are checked. So what I want to know is, how can I determine that this does not have any values so I can do something else once detected?
I added some code using Fluent API to require certain fields but for
some reason the ModelState.IsValid passes even when these fields are
not completed.
ASP.NET MVC doesn't know anything about the Fluent API of Entity Framework and doesn't evaluate this configuration. You only can use the data annotations which MVC will recognize:
[Required]
public string SomeProperty { get; set; }
...how can I determine that this does not have any values so I can do
something else once detected?
Not sure if I understand it correctly but I'd say:
var categories = Request["categories"];
if (categories != null)
{
var selected = categories.Split(',');
// ...
}
else
{
// do something else
}
A majority of the examples I see now are either using the Code First Approach or using an older version of MVC and the Entity Framework.
Assume I have a movie to update and I get to the Edit View, in the Edit method with the Post verb, what is the proper way to update a Movie? The first Edit Method below gets me to the Edit View with the populated Movie values and the second one is the one I want to use to update, I have tried some things, but nothing updates the data.
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
var movie = (from m in _db.Movies1
where m.Id == id
select m).First();
return View(movie);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(Movie movie)
{
try
{
// TODO: Add update logic here
//What do I need to call to update the entity?
_db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
return View();
}
}
Assuming that _db is derived from ObjectContext you have two options:
Change the state of the entity to Modified:
_db.Movies1.Attach(movie);
_db.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(movie, EntityState.Modified);
_db.SaveChanges();
This marks all properties of movie as modified and will send an UPDATE statement to the database which includes all column values, no matter if the values really changed or not.
Reload the original entity from the database and apply the changes to it:
var originalMovie = (from m in _db.Movies1
where m.Id == movie.Id
select m).First();
// You actually don't need to assign to a variable.
// Loading the entity into the context is sufficient.
_db.Movies1.ApplyCurrentValues(movie);
_db.SaveChanges();
ApplyCurrentValues will mark only those properties as modified which really did change compared to the original and the UPDATE statement which will be sent to the database only includes the changed column values. So, the UPDATE statement is potentially smaller than in the first example but you have to pay the price to reload the original entity from the database.
Edit
How does the second code example work?
When you run a query using the context (_db) Entity Framework does not only retrieve the entity from the database and assign it to the left side of the query (originalMovie) but it actually stores a second reference internally. You can think of this internal context "cache" as a dictionary of key-value pairs - the key is the entity primary key and the value is the entity itself, the same object as originalMovie refers to.
ApplyCurrentValues(movie) looks up this entity in the context's internal dictionary: It takes the key property value Id of the passed in movie, searches for an entity with that key in the internal dictionary and then copies property by property from the passed in ("detached") movie to the internal ("attached") entity with the same key. EF's change tracking mechanism marks the properties as Modified which were actually different to create later the appropriate UPDATE statement.
Because of this internal reference to the original entity you do not need to hold your own reference: That's the reason why originalEntity is not used in the code. You can in fact remove the assignment to the local variable altogether.
The example would not work if you disable change tracking when you load the original entity - for example by setting _db.Movies1.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking;. The example relies on enabled change tracking (which is the default setting when entities are loaded from the database).
I cannot say which of the two examples has better performance. That might depend on details like size of the entities, number of properties which have been changed, etc.
It's worth to note though that both approaches do not work if related entities are involved (for example movie refers to a category entity) and if the relationship or the related entity itself could have been changed. Setting the state to Modified and using ApplyCurrentValues both affect only scalar and complex properties of movie but not navigation properties.
Your second edit method should look something like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection)
{
var movie = (from m in _db.Movies1
where m.Id == id
select m).First();
if (TryUpdateModel(movie))
{
_db.SaveChanges();
return (RedirectToAction("Index"));
}
return View(movie);
}
I have a view model sent to the edit action of my controller. The ViewModel contains references to EntityObjects. (yea i'm fine with it and don't need to want to duplicate all the entities properties in the viewmodel).
I instantiate the view model and then call UpdateModel. I get an error that a property is "null" which is fine since it is a related model. I am trying to exclude the property from being bound during model binding. On debugging it I see in the entity where the model binder is trying to set the value of the property to null.
Here is my edit action:
var model = new SimplifiedCompanyViewModel(id);
var excludeProperties = new string[] {
"Entity.RetainedEarningsAccount.AccountNo"
,"Property.DiscountEarnedAccount.ExpenseCodeValue"
,"Entity.EntityAlternate.EntityID"
,"Property.BankAccount.BankAccountID"
,"Entity.PLSummaryAccount.AccountNo"
,"Property.RefundBank.BankAccountID"
,"Company.Transmitter.TCC"
};
try
{
UpdateModel<SimplifiedCompanyViewModel>(model, String.Empty, null, excludeProperties);
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
//db.SaveChanges();
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
return View(model);
}
I have looked at a few other issues about specifying a "prefix" but I don't think that is the issue since I am telling it to bind to the viewmodel instance not just the entity object.
Am I excluding the properties correctly? Strange thing is is only seems to happen on this item. I suspect it may be an issue with the fact that there is actually no refund bank related to my entity. But I have other related items that don't exist and don't see the same issue.
More info... since I'm told me model isn't designed well.
The Company is related to a BankAccount. The Company view shows the currently related BankAccount.BankAccountId and there is a hidden field with the BankAccount.Key. I use jQueryUI autocomplete feature to provide a dropdown of bank account displaying the BankAccount.BankAccountId and when one is selected the jQuery code changes the hidden field to have the correct Key value. So, when this is posted I don't want the current bankaccounts BankAccountID modified, hence I want it to skip binding that field.
If I exclude BankAccountId in the model then on the BankAccount edit view the user would never be able to change the BankAccountId since it won't be bound. I'm not sure how this indicates a poor model design.
Use the Exclude property of the Bind attribute:
[Bind(Exclude="Id,SomeOtherProperty")]
public class SimplifiedCompanyViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
// ...
}
This is part of the System.Web.Mvc namespace. It takes a comma-separated list of property names to exclude when binding.
Also you should consider using TryUpdateModel instead of UpdateModel. You can also just have the default model binder figure it out by passing it as an argument to the constructor:
public ActionResult Create([Bind(Exclude="Id")]SimplifiedCompanyViewModel model)
{
// ...
}
A very simple solution that I figured out.
try
{
UpdateModel<SimplifiedCompanyViewModel>(model, String.Empty, null, excludeProperties);
ModelState.Remove("Entity.RetainedEarningsAccount.AccountNo");
ModelState.Remove("Property.DiscountEarnedAccount.ExpenseCodeValue");
ModelState.Remove("Entity.EntityAlternate.EntityID");
ModelState.Remove("Property.BankAccount.BankAccountID");
ModelState.Remove("Entity.PLSummaryAccount.AccountNo");
ModelState.Remove("Property.RefundBank.BankAccountID");
ModelState.Remove("ompany.Transmitter.TCC");
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
//db.SaveChanges();
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
return View(model);
}
Another option here is simply don't include this attribute in your view and it won't be bound. Yes - you are still open to model injection then if someone creates it on the page but it is another alternative. The default templates in MVC will create your EditorFor, etc as separate items so you can just remove them. This prevents you from using a single line view editor with EditorForModel, but the templates don't generate it that way for you anyways.
EDIT (adding above comment)
DRY generally applies to logic, not to view models. One view = one view model. Use automapper to easily map between them. Jimmy Bogard has a great attribute for this that makes it almost automatic - ie you create the view model, load up your Customer entity for example, and return it in the action method. The AutpMap attribute will then convert it to a ViewModel. See lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/06/30/how-we-do-mvc-view-models
Try the Exclude attribute.
I admit that I haven't ever used it.
[Exclude]
public Entity Name {get; set;}
I have created a simple WCF service that is to be configured by an MVC3 UI.
When I call the index page from my controller, I want to display the values held in the configuration, which has been returned by the service. The user could then chose to edit these settings and then send them back to the service.
I want to do something like this in the index view ...
<div>
#Html.ActionLink("Edit", "Edit", model)
</div>
and then consume the model in the controller like this...
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit( SettingsModel Config)
{
try
{
List<string> configErrors = null;
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
// Set up a channel factory to use the webHTTPBinding
using (WebChannelFactory<IChangeService> serviceChannel = new WebChannelFactory<IChangeService>(new Uri(baseServiceUrl)))
{
IChangeService channel = serviceChannel.CreateChannel();
configErrors = channel.SetSysConfig(Config);
}
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
return View();
}
}
but this doesn't work.
Any suggestions???
When the form gets posted, all the input type fields data is collected and sent to the server. You can see this data using FireBug. The key point here is that, is the data that is being posted in a form, that MVC's default model binder can understand and map it to the model object, which is being passed as input parameter to the action method.
In your case, the model is of type "SettingsModel". You have to ensure that, the form data that is being posted is in format, that can be mapped to the "SettingsModel" object.
Same kind of question discussed in another thread : Can't figure out why model is null on postback?
Check Out this article : NerdDinner Step 6: ViewData and ViewModel
In the above article, carefully go through the "Using a ViewModel Pattern" section. My guess is that, this is what you are looking for.
You will need to post the values to populate the SettingsModel object on the Edit action. You can do this using hidden form fields if you don't want the user to see it. Otherwise you could have no parameters on the Edit action and make another call to the web service to populate the Settings model.
I have a bunch of tables in my database that have a column which is of type GUID. I do not want this to be a part of scaffolding when i generate my views, so i am using [ScaffoldColumn(false)]. I don't want the user to enter an actual GUID when "creating" a new entity. Is there any way to automate the process of automatically adding a new GUID (thru data annotations or some other way??) when a user creates a new Entity or do i have to modify the controller for every table that has a GUID so that every time a user creates a new entry i make sure i generate a new GUID before saving it?
Thanks.
This is where (IMHO) the new scaffolding features encourages bad code.
You should define separate ViewModels for your views. These contain only the fields you wish the user to change along with any view specific validation/rules.
Within your controller action, you can check whether the user input is valid (ModelState.IsValid) and if so, do some lefty-righty mapping between your ViewModel properties and those of your entity.
See ViewModel Best Practices for more details.
However, to answer your question, you can use the HiddenInput attribute on an Id field so that it is rendered as a <input type="hidden"...
With regard with setting the Id, create a base class for your entities e.g:
public abstract class BaseEntity {
public Guid Id {get;set;}
public BaseEntity() {
Id = Guid.NewGuid();
}
}
You can then inherit your entities from this class and when you call new MyEntity() the base class constructor will be invoked, thus setting the Id.