I got a silly general question...
If I generate a strongly typed view of an entity and chose "edit" as scaffolding, then the view does contain every column for that table. Changing and saving the values via setting it modifierd and call db.SaveChanges() does work in the controller. So far, so good.
But if I remove just one of that columns inside the view, then saving doesn't work anymore.
Is there a rule describing this? Is it only possible to make view with every column when wanting to save the model later on? I don't want to make 90 of 100 columns "hidden"...
PS: When editing a value in another table which is connected via Foreign Key (like customer.address.STREET) saving also does not work. Does everything of the entity ADDRESS has to be inside the view? I really don't get that.
Besides that: If I create my own ViewModel containing two entities: Do they also have to hold every column of both entities? This would be a whole bunch of traffic...
Answer is: You should not use the .Modified state. Instead using the UpdateModel method works fine without every field.
Related
I use Backpack for Laravel.
I know that to add a field, we can use:
CRUD::addField(['name'=>..])
But, I don't know how to add a field that lookup another field input from different table to show a lookup value.
Please look at the illustration below.
Thanks.
Edit:
I found a temporary solution to this, but not effective.
Reference: https://backpackforlaravel.com/docs/4.1/crud-how-to#add-a-select2-field-that-depends-on-another-field
With select2_from_ajax you still have to select the option (even its just one option left), meanwhile what I really want is its automatically select that one option.
It's depends on what you need to do. You can use relationship field and show a select with the list of user. If you really wanna do it like this. You can probably make an ajax request to show it. In that case you ll need to use a custom view for the edit or the create view.
I have a working system that lets me build a database containing instances of various entities , all linked together nicely.
Before I knew I would care, I came across a tutorial on using Core Data and bindings, and it went through a complete case where you get a table showing all the entities of some type with a column for each property. It showed both the UI side and the Data model side - not that I need the data model part at this point. Now, darned if I can find it. This is one of those things that is supposed to be easy, and requires virtually no code, but getting exactly the right connections in UIBuilder is not going to happen if I can't find instructions.
Also, I thought I came across an example of something like a query editor where the user could select which properties to sort on, which to match on, etc. Did I imagine that?
Anyone out there know where I can find such?
Sure, you can do this without code:
Add an array controller to your nib.
Bind or connect an outlet for its managed object context
Set the array controller to Entity mode, fill in the entity name, and select Prepares Content.
Bind your table view columns to array controller's arranged objects, and fill in the key name for the model key.
Regarding the query editor, open up the model, and on the Editor menu click Add Fetch Request.
I found at least a partial answer to the query editor question, in this apple tutorial. Not sure how far it will get me, as I prefer to write code where possible, since then I can leave a trail of comments.
I am working on a MVC3 code first web application and after I showed the first version to my bosses, they suggested they will need a 'spare' (spare like in something that's not yet defined and we will use it just in case we will need it) attribute in the Employee model.
My intention is to find a way to give them the ability to add as many attributes to the models as they will need. Obviously I don't want them to get their hands on the code and modify it, then deploy it again (I know I didn't mention about the database, that will be another problem). I want a solution that has the ability to add new attributes 'on the fly'.
Do any of you had similar requests and if you had what solution did you find/implement?
I haven't had such a request, but I can imagine a way to get what you want.
I assume you use the Entity Framework, because of your tag.
Let's say we have a class Employee that we want to be extendable. We can give this class a dictionary of strings where the key-type is string, too. Then you can easily add more properties to every employee.
For saving this structure to the database you would need two tables. One that holds the employees and one that holds the properties. Where the properties-table has a foreign-key targeting the employee-table.
Or as suggested in this Q&A (EF Code First - Map Dictionary or custom type as an nvarchar): you can save the contents of the dictionary as XML in one column of the employee table.
This is only one suggestion and it would be nice to know how you solved this.
I am just getting into Entity Framework for the first time beyond simple examples.
I am using the model-first approach and am querying the data source with LINQ-to-Entities.
I have created an entity model that I am exposing as an OData service against a database where I do not control the schema. In my model, I have two entities that are based off of two views in this database. I've created an association between the two entities. Both views have a column with the same name.
I am getting the error:
Ambiguous column name 'columnname'. Could not use view or function 'viewname' because of binding errors.
If I was writing the SQL statement myself, I'd qualify one of the column names with an alias to prevent this issue. EF apparently isn't doing that. How do I fix this, short of changing the view? (which I cannot do) I think this does have something to do with these entities being mapped to views, instead of being mapped to actual tables.
Assuming you can change the model have you tried going into the model and just changing one of the column names? I can still see how it might be problematic if the two views are pulling back the same column from the same table. I can tell that when working directly with a model mapped to tables, having identically named columns is not a problem. Even having multiple associations to the same table is handled correctly, the Navigation Properties are automatically given unique names. Depending on which version of EF you used you should be able to dig into the cs file either under the model or under the t4 template file and see what's going on. Then you can always create a partial class to bend it to your will.
I have having a little trouble wrapping my head around the design pattern for MVC when the data type of the model property is very different than what I wish to display in a form. I am unsure of where the logic should go.
Realizing that I am not really sure how to ask the question I think I will explain it as a concrete example.
I have a table of Invoices with a second table containing the InvoiceDetails. Each of the InvoiceDetail items has an owner who is responsible for approving the charge. A given invoice has one or more people that will eventually sign off on all the detail rows so the invoice can be approved. The website is being built to provide the approval functionality.
In the database I am storing the employee id of the person who approved the line item. This schema provides me a model with a String property for the Approved column.
However, on the website I wish to provide a CheckBox for the employee to click to indicate they approve the line item.
I guess my question is this -- how do I handle this? The Model being passed to the View has a String property but the form value being passed back to the Controller will be of the CheckBox type. I see two possible ways...
1) Create a new Model object to represent the form fields...say something like FormInvoiceDetails...and have the business logic query the database and then convert the results to the other type. Then after being submitted, the form values need to be converted back so the original Model objects can be updated.
2) Pass the original InvoiceDetails collection to the View and have code there create render the CheckBox based on the value of the String property. I am still not sure how to handle the submission since I still need to map back the form values to the underlying database object.
Maybe there is a third way if not one of these two approaches?
To make the situation a bit more complicated (or maybe it doesn't), I am rendering the form to allow for the editing of multiple rows (i.e. collection).
Thanks for any insight anybody can provide.
You need a ViewModel, like #Justn Niessner suggests.
Your controller loads the complete model from the database, copies just the fields it needs into a ViewModel, and then hands the ViewModel off to the view for rendering.
I'd use Automapper to do the conversion from Model to ViewModel. It automates all the tedious thingA.x = thingY.x; code.
Here is an additional blog post going over in detail the use of ViewModels in the Nerd Dinner sample.
I believe what you are looking for is the ViewModel.
In cases where you are using a ViewModel, you design the ViewModel to match the exact data you need to show on your page.
You then use your Controller to populate and map your data from your Model in to your ViewModel and back again.
The Nerd Dinner ASP.NET MVC Example has some very good examples of using ViewModels.