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;}
Related
Scenario: I have view, view model and model for PickList and PickLine. The PickListViewModel contains an ObservableCollection<PickLineViewModel> and the PickList model contains a List<PickLine>. My PickList page contains a ListView which is bound to the ObservableCollection<PickLineViewModel> and if a line is tapped NavigateAsync is called to navigate to the tapped PickLine.
Normally, when I call NavigateAsync Prism navigates to the page, locates the view model, creates an instance of it and binds this instance to the view. But in this case the view model instance that should be bound to the page is already existant (as an element of my ObservableCollection) and I don't want the Prism ViewModelLocator to create a new instance, due to the fact that it then would have to get data from web service and I try to keep the number of web service calls as low as possible.
Also I can't use models in the ObservableCollection because the view model contains properties which are only used for UI purposes so these properties should definitely not be part of the model, but the UI properties I'm talking about are needed in the PickList page and in the PickLine page.
Tl;dr: Is there any way in Prism.Forms to provide a view model instance
on navigating to a page that will than be bound to it?
Your problem is that you are confusing what a Model is and what a ViewModel is. In this case what you should have is:
PickLine (Model)
PickLineView (View)
PickLineViewModel (ViewModel)
PickLineListView (View)
PickLineListViewModel (ViewModel)
Containing your ObservableCollection of PickLine not PickLineViewModel
Without seeing your precise code, I'm going to take a guess from experience here that your code probably looks something like the following in principal:
public ObservableCollection<PickLineViewModel> Items { get; set; }
public DelegateCommand<PickLineViewModel> ItemTappedCommand { get; }
public void OnNavigatedTo(INavigationAware parameters)
{
var picks = _dataService.GetPickLines();
Items = new ObservableCollection<PickLineViewModel>(
picks.Select(x => new PickLineViewModel
{
Model = x,
ItemTappedCommand = ItemTappedCommand
});
}
I see code like the above a lot from people who confuse the difference between a Model and ViewModel, and often from people who don't understand how to properly bind back to the ViewModel from something like a Cell in a ListView.
What you should have instead is code that is more like:
public ObservableCollection<PickLine> Items { get; set; }
public DelegateCommand<PickLine> ItemTappedCommand { get; }
public void OnNavigatedTo(INavigationAware parameters)
{
var picks = _dataService.GetPickLines();
Items = new ObservableCollection<PickLine>(picks);
}
Is there any way in Prism.Forms to provide a view model instance on navigating to a page that will than be bound to it?
No, as far as I know, Prism Forms does not provide view model-first navigation (as opposed to Prism on WPF which does).
You should be able to work around this, though, by passing your existing view model as parameter and making the ViewModelLocator-created view model an "empty shell" that redirects everything to the actual view model.
From what I've read, I'm supposed to be using ViewModels to populate my views in MVC, rather than the model directly. This should allow me to pass not just the contents of the model, but also other information such as login state, etc. to the view instead of using ViewBag or ViewData. I've followed the tutorials and I've had both a model and a viewmodel successfully sent to the view. The original problem I had was that I needed a paginated view, which is simple to do when passing a model alone, but becomes difficult when passing a viewmodel.
With a model of
public class Instructor {
public string forename { get; set; }
public string surname { get; set; }
}
and a viewmodel of
public class InstructorVM {
public Instructor Instructors { get; set; }
public string LoggedIn { get; set; }
}
I can create a paginated list of the instructors using the pure model Instructor but I can't pass InstructorVM to the view and paginate it as there are other properties that aren't required in the pagination LoggedIn cause issues. If I pass InstructorVM.Instructors to the view, I get the pagination, but don't get the LoggedIn and as this is just the model, I may has well have passed that through directly.
An alternative that was suggested was to convert/expand the viewmodel into a list or somesuch which would produce an object like this that gets passed to the view
instructor.forename = "dave", instructor.surname = "smith", LoggedIn="Hello brian"
instructor.forename = "alan", instructor.surname = "jones", LoggedIn="Hello brian"
instructor.forename = "paul", instructor.surname = "barns", LoggedIn="Hello brian"
where the LoggedIn value is repeated in every row and then retrieved in the row using Model[0].LoggedIn
Obviously, this problem is caused because you can only pass one object back from a method, either Instructor, InstructorVM, List<InstructorVM>, etc.
I'm trying to find out the best option to give me pagination (on part of the returned object) from a viewmodel while not replicating everything else in the viewmodel.
One suggestion was to use a JavaScript framework like React/Angular to break up the page into a more MVVM way of doing things, the problem with that being that despite looking for suggestions and reading 1001 "Best JS framework" lists via Google, they all assume I have already learned all of the frameworks and can thus pick the most suitable one from the options available.
When all I want to do is show a string and a paginated list from a viewmodel on a view. At this point I don't care how, I don't care if I have to learn a JS framework or if I can do it just using MVC core, but can someone tell me how to do this thing I could do quite simply in ASP.NET? If it's "use a JS framework" which one?
Thanks
I'm not exactly sure what the difficulty is here, as pagination and using a view model aren't factors that play on one another. Pagination is all about selecting a subset of items from a data store, which happens entirely in your initial query. For example, whereas you might originally have done something like:
var widgets = db.Widgets.ToList();
Instead you would do something like:
var widgets = db.Widgets.Skip((pageNumber - 1) * itemsPerPage).Take(itemsPerPage).ToList();
Using a view model is just a layer on top of this, where you then just map the queried data, no matter what it is onto instances of your view model:
var widgetViewModels = widgets.Select(w => new WidgetViewModel
{
...
});
If you're using a library like PagedList or similar, this behavior may not be immediately obvious, since the default implementation depends on having access to the queryset (in order to do the skip/take logic for you). However, PagedList, for example has StaticPagedList which allows you to create an IPagedList instance with an existing dataset:
var pagedWidgets = new StaticPagedList<WidgetViewModel>(widgetViewModels, pageNumber, itemsPerPage, totalItems);
There, the only part you'd be missing is totalItems, which is going to require an additional count query on the unfiltered queryset.
If you're using a different library, there should be some sort of similar functionality available. You'll just need to confer with the documentation.
I am working on an ASP.NET MVC 3 project and need to exclude certain properties from server side validation. I am looking for something like in this question Is it possible to override the required attribute on a property in a model? but I do not want to bind the model again because I have already made changes to it (from my understanding that is what TryUpdateModel will do).
From related question
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
var model = new BaseModel();
if (TryUpdateModel(model, null, null, new[] { "RequiredProperty" })) // fourth parameter is an array of properties (by name) that are excluded
{
// updated and validated correctly!
return View(model);
}
// failed validation
return View(model);
}
I want to validate the already updated model excluding certain properties. Should I just use TryUpdateModel like hackedbychinese suggested in the linked question? Could it change the values of the properties?
I ended up using the jquery validation rules remove method.
$("#fax_DisplayPhoneNumber").rules("remove", "required");
This overrides the [Required] tag on the fax DisplayPhoneNumber property in the model so it is no longer a required input.
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
}
Questions
There are actually two related questions:
Should I create a ViewModel for each page?
If you do not have problems in creating a single ViewModel class for the two pages (Create.cshtml and Edit.cshtml) how can I validate the ViewModel in different ways (depending on the page that is being used)
Source
ViewModel
public class ProjectViewModel
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Url { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
Edit.cshtml
#using BindSolution.ViewModel.Project
#model ProjectViewModel
#{
ViewBag.Title = Model.Name;
}
#Html.EditorForModel()
Create.cshtml
#using BindSolution.ViewModel.Project
#model ProjectViewModel
#{
ViewBag.Title = "New Project";
}
#Html.EditorForModel()
ProjectValidator.cs
public class ProjectValidator : AbstractValidator<ProjectViewModel>
{
private readonly IProjectService _projectService;
public ProjectValidator(IProjectService projectService)
{
_projectService = projectService;
RuleFor(p => p.Name)
.NotEmpty().WithMessage("required field")
/*The validation should be made only if the page is Create.cshtml. That is, if you are creating a new project.*/
.When(p => p.??) //Problem Here!!
.Must(n => !_projectService.Exist(n)).WithMessage("name already exists");
RuleFor(p => p.Url)
.NotEmpty().WithMessage("required field");
}
}
Note that if the user is editing an existing project, validation of the property name should not be done again.
ProjectController.cs > Edit method
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(Guid projectID, ProjectViewModel model)
{
var project = _projectService.Repository.Get(projectID);
if (ModelState.IsValid && TryUpdateModel(project))
{
_projectService.Repository.Attach(project);
if (_projectImageWrap.Create(project) && _projectService.Repository.Save() > 0)
return AjaxRedirect("Index");
}
return View(model);
}
Notes
If I create a ViewModel for each page, there is a duplication of code since pages have the same properties.
Add a property on the ViewModel indicating what page it is being displayed does not solve my problem as to instantiate the ViewModel, I use AutoMapper.
To validate the data, I use FluentValidator.
Thank you all for your help!
My understanding is that there isn't a 1:1 correlation between ViewModels and Views. Oftentimes you will have a View that will not require a ViewModel to go alongside with it.
You will want to create a ViewModel if and only if you need a Model absolutely paralleled and tailored to a specific View. This will not be the case 100% of the time.
When the functionality / use case /validation is different between the pages I use different models. If its the exact same besides the presence of an ID or something similar I use the same model, and its also possible to just use the same view if the differences are pretty minor.
Since your validation is different, if I were doing it I would create two different models so that I could use the out of the box DataAnnotations, with your validation though it may not be required. You could also on the edit model have a readonly property for name since its not editable any longer.
For me the same object must have the same validation on every time, in main to ensure the consistence of the object, independently if it was created or edited.
i think that you should create only one validation, and edit your "exists" method to pass to verify if it is a new object or the current object in repository.
Personally, I don't have a problem with 2 view models, especially if (as Paul Tyng suggested) you use a base class for the fields that are common to edit and create scenarios.
However, if you really only want a single view model then you would either need to:
add a flag to the view model and use the When() method in your validator. Note though that this will not generate the appropriate client-side only validation
define a second validator and invoke the appropriate one from the controller (i.e. instead of the "automatic" validation)
Provide another view Edit.cshtml which will allow the user to edit the data for a selected item.
Create another view Query.cshtml which based on the ItemName will allow the users to query the Inventory table.
Perform the calculation for the total profit (numbersold times (saleprice-purchasecost). Display the total profit.
(BONUS) Create another view Sell.cshtml that will indicate the sale of an item. Adding one to NumberSold and subtract one from NumberInventory for the selected record.