I've inherited an MVC 3 project that uses AutoMapper. It appears to use nothing but the default Automapper configuration (I can't find any other configuration for Automapper anywhere in the solution, in other words). So I've written code like this for two new models I've added to the project:
Mapper.CreateMap<Entities.Document, Models.Attachment>();
Mapper.AssertConfigurationIsValid();
return Mapper.Map <List<Entities.Document>, List<Models.Attachment>>(Attachments);
Which ought to work fine - but the problem is that Automapper fails because of an inability to map completely unrelated objects. In other words, I get this message when Mapper.Map is called:
The following 2 properties on MyApp.Models.User are not mapped:
IsAdminUser
SubRoleList
Add a custom mapping expression, ignore, or rename the property on
MyApp.Entities.UserProfile.
Why is the mapping failing when Models.User has nothing to do with the models I'm mapping? They don't inherit from it. They don't contain any references to it. My new models are very simple models that contain a few strings and ints. MyApp.Models.User doesn't rely on them for anything, either.
I realize this problem can be solved by specifying the mappings in my AutoMapper calls. In fact, I've already done so, and it solves the problem. So I'm not worried about that. I can move on. What I'm worried about is that I can't figure out for the life of me why I'm getting this message when I try to use the default mapping. There are many other objects in the app which are very similar to the new objects I'm trying to map. They all work perfectly when code like the above is called. They don't require specifying any mappings and they don't have problems with MyApp.Models.User. I just want to know WHY this is happening because I want to understand it. Anyone got ideas? In case it's not obvious, I'm relatively new to MVC and Automapper. Thanks. :)
EDIT: Additional information:
If I add a call to Mapper.Reset() before the call to CreateMap(), everything works perfectly. I still don't understand why my method is the only method in the app that needs a Reset first.
Related
I have an App using a sql base. I created this base with 1 Entity, 10 Attributes at the begining.
So, now I have to add new attributes. (4 more), so I did the versioning, model ... update.
Then, I changed my App in order to access to my new fields values. But, what I don't understand, is how my App can access to my new field in the updated sqlite data base.
Certainly doing something wrong but honestly don't know.
Whether you're using SQLite or not makes absolutely no difference here. Similarly, if lightweight migration is working (i.e. the store is being opened successfully) then there's really little more to say about that.
Assuming you're using NSManagedObject subclasses then what you've probably not realised is that merely updating your model doesn't update the classes you generated for it. So you need to do that again. It'll add the new properties to the relevant classes.
You could write a quick test using key-value coding to demonstrate that the fields are there — e.g.
NSLog(#"%#", [object valueForKey:#"newProperty"]);
... but you should probably stick to generating new class definitions and using the runtime-synthesised getters and setters that flow from there, as it'll allow the compiler better to verify what you're typing and will lead to more efficient code at runtime.
I am newer to Spring, previously I've worked in PHP and Python. I am having some issues understanding how Spring forms work and are validated. My understanding thus far is that when you are using the your form is backed by a bean, meaning you must provide a bean to the JSP. You can also use the stand HTML forms but then you have to manually retrieve the request parameters in the controller.
Here is the issue I am having. I have a User bean that is using Hibernate Validator, and I have add, edit pages for users. The issue is I don't want the password field to appear on the Edit page, the password is going to be garbage anyway because its using BCrypt. However when the form is submitted validation fails because it expects the password to be present. There doesn't seem to be anyway to do partial bean implementation using Spring Form.
I would like to use Spring Form if possible because it reduces repetitive validation code, and its always nice to work with objects. My thoughts now are do I create an intermediate object and then translate the data from that to my bean. Seems tedious and can lead to the creation of way to many objects. My other thought is to just using plain old HTML forms and pull the params myself and set the values in the object.
I'm not sure what is the best approach or if I'm even thinking on the right track. Spring Forms and the validation is offers seems great, but seems like it isn't particularly flexible. Like I said I'm new to Spring so I may just be missing something or not understanding.
Another issue I have been wrestling with is having multiple objects needed on a form. Lets say I have a User bean, which has the following Properties.
private Role role;
private Country country;
So I need to pass User, List, and List to my JSP. I can get them to display fine, however if the form validation fails when it returns to that page, I lose my role and country objects, unless I re-add them to the model before returning the view name. Am I missing something here or is that the norm. It's a request object so I guess that makes sense but seems tedious to have to re-add them every time.
My understanding thus far is that when you are using the your form is
backed by a bean, meaning you must provide a bean to the JSP.
I'd say mostly true. The form is backed by a bean, but the Spring JSTL tags know how to get to the bean based on the set modelAttribute. The bean is living in what you would consider "page" scope, unless you add set your model attribute to be in session. Either way, if you are using the Spring JSTL tags, they are going to one or the other place to get it.
You can also use the stand HTML forms but then you have to manually
retrieve the request parameters in the controller.
Not true. You can "simulate" the same thing that the Spring JSTL tags are doing. Understand that JSTL tags are very much like macros. They are simply copying in some pre-determined block of code into the output with some very rudimentary conditional statements. The key bit that Spring MVC needs to wire the Model Attribute on the Controller side is the name and value, which are easy to decipher how those get generated/wired together.
However when the form is submitted validation fails because it expects
the password to be present.
You could create a "DTO" or "Data Transmission Object", which is basically a go-between to take the values from the UI and are converted in the Controller/Service layer to the real Model objects on the backend. Or, if you are lazy like me, put the User in session scope, in which case you don't have to post the value as Spring will take the one out of session and just updated the one or two fields you did post. Don't post the password, Spring wont set the password.
My thoughts now are do I create an intermediate object and then
translate the data from that to my bean.
Yes, this is the DTO I referred to. You only need to do it where you need to.
I'm not sure what is the best approach or if I'm even thinking on the
right track.
There are probably thousands of ways to do anything in coding, some more right or wrong than others. I know some developers who are design-Nazi's and would say you should always do it one way or another, but I am not one of those people. I think as long as you are consistent, and you are not doing something completely boneheaded you are on the right track. My #1 concern with all the code I write is maintainability. I
Don't want to spend 20hrs trying to re-learn what I did 6mo ago, so I tend to choose the simpler option
Hate repeating code, so I tend to choose more module designs
Hate having to spend 20hrs trying to re-learn what I did 6mo ago, so tend to make heavy use of JavaDoc and comments where I find the code is tricky (lots of loops, doing something weird, etc)
Another issue I have been wrestling with is having multiple objects
needed on a form.
There are several ways to deal with this too. I have never used it, but you CAN actually have more than one Model Attribute associated with the same form and Controller handler. I think you use a <spring:bind> tag or something. I have seen samples around, so Google it if you think you need that.
My approach is usually to either put something in session or build a DTO to hold all the things I need. The first I use more for things like lists to drive building the view, for instance if I have a drop down of States coming from a table. I would have a List of the States put into session and just use them from there, that way I only go after them once and done.
I use the DTO approach (some might call it a Form Bean) when I have a complex gaggle of things I need to change all at once, but the things are not necessarily connected directly. Just to point out: You can have nested objects in your model attributes and use them in your Spring JSTL tags. You can also have Collections (List, Set, Map) in your Model Attribute and get to those as well, although Spring doesn't handle nested Collections very well.
Hope that helps.
I have a project where the data-model and business-layer are located in two different modules. Of course, the bussiness-module has a dependency to the model-module. The entity-validation is implemented through java-validation-api annotations.
I'm wondering where I should implement the cross-entity-validation (business validation, where the relations between different entity types are validated). Currently I see the follwing options:
Create custom javax.validation.ConstraintValidators and associated annotations. Problem is, that the validator would need access to the business-services, i.e. to retrieve related entities, but the model-module should not have a dependency to the business-module.
Implement cross-entity-validation in the business-services persist/merge-methods (i.e. by using interceptors). That would be possible, but the cross-entity-validation is seperated from the entity-validation and I would like to have only one place for validation.
Which option is preferable? Are there any better suggestions?
Thanks,
Sebastian
From the ideological point of view approach 1. is better. Bean Validation is working at the level of Model (in Model-View-Controller) and it is nothing wrong if Model part talks to database. So, for instance, you can create DAOs, which can be used both by service leayer and Model validators in order to avoid code duplication.
Interceptors are also good place to validate something, but you will not be able to use full power and automaticity of Bean Validation. Probably you will need to call validate method on your model objects by hand, throw ConstraintViolationException where needed, etc. Doable, but a little bit of work. In addition some validation probably will be left in Model, so, as you've pointed out, there would be more then one place, where validation is going on.
So I would move necessary DB code to separate layer and go with option 1.
I first have to say we are experimenting with removing our DTO layer and strictly using entities. Reason being, we tried several different mappers and they all caused performance issues. This is to be expected if you have large data sets and have many complex objects.
So, we are employing the UnitOfWork pattern and are wondering why we might be getting the "The relationship between the two objects cannot be defined because they are attached to different ObjectContext objects." error. Unity is taking care of serving up the correct UnitOfWork and we even put a Version code on the UoW to make sure it is the same one getting passed around. And we can't find that there is a different one anywhere.
Without getting into our code, has anyone else had this same experience using the Unity.MVC3 DependencyResolver and teh UoW getting instanited more than once? We are using the HierarchicalLifetimeManager on the UoW.
After writing a few lesser programs when learning Java the way I've designed the programs is with Model-View-Control. With using MVC I have a plethora of getter methods in the model for the view to use.
It feels that while I gain on using MVC, for every new value added I have to add two new methods in the model which quickly get all cluttered with getter & setters.
So I was thinking, maybe I should use the notifyObserver method that takes an argument. But wouldn't feel very smart to send every value by itself either so I figured, maybe if I send a kind of container with all the values, preferably only those that actually changed.
What this would accomplish would be that instead of having a whole lot of getter methods I could just have one method in the model which put all relevant values in the container.
Then in the view I would have a method called from the update which extracted the values from the container and assigning them to the correct fields.
I have two questions concerning this.
First: is this actually a viable way to do this. Would you recommend me doing something along these lines?
Secondly: if I do use this plan and I don't want to keep sending fields that didn't actually change. How would I handle that without having to have if statements to check if the value is not null for every single value?
I've more familiar with the MVP paradigm, but hopefully they're similar enough to comment. While getters (and setters) in and of themselves are not necessarily evil, they are sometimes a sign that your subsystems are too strongly coupled. One really great way to decouple this is to use an event bus: see Best practices for architecting GWT apps. This allows the view to just shoot off events for the controller to listen for whenever something important happens, and the view can listen for events whenever something changes in the model that corresponds to updating the view. Ideally you wouldn't even need to ever pass the model to the view, if you can break up any changes into incremental pieces and just tell the view to change this part and then this other part.
If you feel you have too many getters (and setters) in your model class, maybe you have too many fields altogether. Is it possible that there are several distinct classes hiding within your model? If you extract these into separate classes, it may make your model more manageable.
OTOH the associated container you are thinking about could also be viable - but then why duplicate all data? You could instead use the associated container directly in the model to store all properties you can think of. And you can also pass this around for observers to get updates (preferably wrapped into an unmodifiable container, of course) - although in this setup you wouldn't need to.
In general, Java is a verbose language which expects you to put all those getters and setters (and a lot more) in place. However, any decent IDE can generate those for you with a few keypresses. Note also that you need to write them only once, and you will read and call them many many more times. Verbose also means easily readable.
If you have too many getter it's ok. But you shouldn't need the setter. The view is supposed to only read/query the model.
The MVC pattern should promote something that is asymmetric: the control update the model by calling methods in the model that embed the logic and update the sate accordingly; this respects encapsulation. The view reads/queries the model via the getters. This goes a bit against information hiding, but that's how MVC works.
I wouldn't personally pass all information in the events. It sounds complicated to me: either you end up with something that is not statically typed (e.g. you pass hashmaps), or with a plethora of typed events. I would stick with something simple, and have (possibly many) getter in the model.