When is localization (or lack of) a bad thing? - localization

The following code returns a message which states whether the input value is a palindrome:
(for the sake of this post, the syntax isn't important, or written in any particular language)
function isPalindrome(
value: string,
successMessage: string = "Is palindrome",
failureMessage: string = "Is not palindrome"): string {
return value.reverse() == value ? successMessage : failureMessage;
}
Notice in the code above, the default messages are written in English, however as they are supplied as parameters, this method could easily be localized, and because the method has default values for the messages, this doesn't force the developer to provide them; for example:
isPalindrome("level") // returns "Is palindrome"
However we can demonstrate localization; for example, in spanish:
isPalindrome("level", "es palíndromo", "no es palíndromo") // returns "es palíndromo"
This got me thinking, when should code be designed with localization in mind?
Another example would be with exceptions; for example:
class PalindromeException : Exception("Is not a palindrome")
function validatePalindrome(value: string): void {
if (value.reverse() != value) {
throw PalindromeException();
}
}
Notice in this example that there is no way to localize the message in the exception. I know this could easily be fixed using the same principles in the first example, but it has been purposefully designed to demonstrate a lack of globalization.
Therefore, when should globalization be applied to code, so that it may be localized? When does it matter, and when does it not?

I believe, there's no ideal answer - everything depends on your architecture and use-cases.
However, I would suggest the following patterns:
All log messages (both server and client) should be in English
All error API responses should always provide a description in English and a unique error code which you can translate into a friendly message on the client side
In order to provide a good UX, all client messages should be in a user's language
In general, it's a good practice to have all technical data (logs, errors, etc) in English. All user-facing data has to be understandable for a user.

It strongly depends on your use-case. I would recommend to localise messages, that are displayed in a frontend, right away. My experience is, it's very costly to do it later. For debugging or monitoring messages I probably would do it just in english, 'cause most of developers are able to read english messages.

The only place where localization should take place is in the UI. If you’re sticking to the MVC principle of separation of concerns (or something similar like MVP or such), then the localization happens exclusively in the View part. Your isPalindrome function sounds more like business logic belonging to the Model part and should therefore not be concerned with i18n at all. Neither should exceptions worry about it, since no exception should ever be printed to the UI as is (except to provide debugging information, which doesn’t need to be/shouldn’t be localized).
Your function should only return true or false, and an entirely separate UI part should translate that into something user facing, potentially localizing it in the process. Same with the exception, it should be caught by something which loads an appropriately localized UI explaining the issue to the user.

All labels needs to be translated.
For this definition, text is an information being read by end user. In that context, a label is a piece of text which at the same time is not user input or user data.
To give an example, in an 'Save as' dialog the file name would be user input, the file content user data and the Save and Cancel labels on the two buttons would be the labels (and therefore in need of an translation).
Given this definition, the rule is as follows:
Only user interface code needs to translate and it translates all labels. On the opposite, business logic code not directly facing end users (such as libraries or backend services) shall not translate at all. Further, neither the business logic implementation nor the business logic API handles text other then user input or user data.
The rule thus also implicates clean separation of business logic code from user interface code. That comes very handy for testing.
For the palindrome example, the function would be business logic, and it would not return a text but something more suitable e.g. an boolean or enum. The user interface code would then evaluate the return and translate it appropriately. The same applies to the exception.

Related

How to bind from DataTemplate to Page's DataContext?

I've got a page where a DataTemplate is being used to bind to the model for that content, e.g.:
<DataTemplate x:DataType="models:MyDataType">
... content ...
</DataTemplate>
In that content, I need to be able to bind a Click event. I need that click event to exist in the view model that is set as the page's DataContext:
<Page.DataContext>
<vm:MyViewModel x:Name="ViewModel">
</Page.DataContext>
but I'm really struggling with getting it to compile. Every approach I try results in the compilation error "Object reference not set to an instance of an object".
I know I can't use x:Bind because that will bind to the DataTemplate's DataContext, so I've been trying to use Binding and, based on other SO answers I've read, it seems like the answer should be:
Click="{Binding DataContext.Button_Click, ElementName=Page}"
where Page is defined as the x:Name for the Page. I've tried removing DataContext. I've tried adding ViewModel.
What am I misunderstanding? Is it not possible to do what I want to do? I've tried using code-behind instead but I'm using Template 10 and that pushes almost everything onto the view model, which makes it harder for me to access things like the navigation service from code-behind.
tl;dr; use Messaging.
#justinXL is right, 'ElementName' can work. But is it best?
The problem you are trying to solve has already been solved with messaging. Most MVVM implementations include a messaging solution. Prism uses PubSubEvents; MVVM Light has its own messenger. There are others, too.
The idea is that an outside class, typically described as a message aggregator, is responsible for statelessly receiving and multicasting messages. This means you need to have a reference to the aggregator but not a reference to the sender. It’s beautiful.
For example
A common use case might be a mail client and how the data template of a message in the list would include a trash/delete button. When you click that button, what should be called? With messaging, you handle the button_press in the model and send/publish a message (one that passes the item).
The hosting view-model has subscribed to the aggregator and is listening for a specific message, the Delete message that we just sent. Upon receipt, it removes it from the list and begins the process to delete it from cache/database, or whatever – including prompting the user with “Are you sure?”
This means all your data binding in your data template is local, and does NOT extend outside its local scope. Why does this matter? Because if you use Element Binding to reach the hosting page, it means you cannot 1) move this template to a resource dictionary or 2) reuse this template.
There are two other reasons.
you cannot use compiled x:Bind to do this because it already limits use of this painful binding approach – this matters because a data template is typically in a list, and performance should always be prioritized, and
It adds considerable complexity.
Complexity?
I am a big fan of sophisticated solutions. I think they are rare and are the trademark of truly smart developers. I love looking at such code/solutions. Complex is not the same as sophisticated. When it comes to complexity, I am not a fan. Data binding is already difficult to wrap your head around; multi-sourcing your data binding across scope boundaries is pure complexity.
That’s what I think.
Your binding expression is correct, except it won't work with a Button_Click event handler. You will need an ICommand defined in your page's ViewModel.
Since you are using Template10, you should be able to create a DelegateCommand called ClickCommand like this
private DelegateCommand<MyDataType> _clickCommand;
public DelegateCommand<MyDataType> ClickCommand
{
get
{
_clickCommand = _clickCommand ?? new DelegateCommand<<MyDataType>>((model) =>
{
// put your logic here.
});
return _clickCommand;
}
}
And the binding will be updated to
<Button Command="{Binding DataContext.ClickCommand, ElementName=Page}" CommandParameter="{x:Bind}" />
Note I have also added a CommandParameter binding to the button as you might want to know which MyDataType instance is associated with the clicked button.

calling system commands from rails - general design pattern

Rails newbie here, building a rails api backend application.
Here is the broad application flow
There is a single model palindrome which has a field name of string kind
In the simplest user interaction user client sends POST with string name to PalindromeController.
This string need to be passed to a system application systemapp and the app would return another string. This would need to be parsed as a JSON string and returned to the client.
Questions on how to go about the following.
where should I call the systemapp from - from model or controller ?
should the call to systemapp be wrapped in a background job ?
Call it from the model.
If it were a more complex case, you could treat the subprogram as a proper interface and write a separate class for it. This one I would probably put into lib/interfaces or even I a separate gem, as it would contain only code specific to the subprogram, not to your application.
The lackmus test for where it goes is "will or should your model ever be able to do anything at all without that subprogram". If yes, then it is a case of dependency injection and could go into the controller. If "no", then it goes into the model.
Rule of thumb: fat models, lean controllers.
Do it directly if the performance is acceptable, i.e. if there is no risk of normal user activity overwhelming the webserver. Else, you would use deferred execution, i.e. batch processing, which would entail a very much larger end result.

MVC FluentValidation with entity framework in separate .dll

I have a separate .dll with our database model and partial classes etc in using FluentValidation which works fine (it's to be used by both by desktop barcoding terminals and also by our website).
For the desktop apps I can read and display all errors like below
public override int SaveChanges()
{
var errors = this.GetValidationErrors();
if (errors.Any())
{
//handle validation errors
return 0;
}
else
{
return base.SaveChanges();
}
}
For the MVC site I can set up validators on individual models or create data annotations and get those working okay (which is not what I want). The thing I can't get my head around is how I can force my models to map to my entities in a way that I can display the fluent validation messages in the views. I don't want to have two separate sets of logic to be maintained and the barcoding apps and website must use the same.
Do I have to map my entities directly to the views? which i've been led to believe is a bad thing and not very flexible. Or is there a way of stating that a field in a model maps back to an attribute of one of my entities? perhaps an annotation of some description.
EDIT:
Just some clarification for the types of validation i'll need.
most front end input type validation will still stay in the viewModels (required/length/password matches etc - basically all the stuff I can use for client side validation as well). But there are all the business logic validations that I don't want there. Things like email addresses must be validated before other options can be set, account numbers must be of a particular format based on name (stuff I can't do with a regex). This particular date is not a valid delivery date etc.
I guess one thing I could do is add these to the ValidationSummary somehow and display them separate from the individual fields.
I think you're just looking at the situation wrong. What MVC is all about is a separation of concerns. There's things the database needs to know about that your views could care less, and vice versa. That's why the recommended practice is to use view model with your views and not the entity itself.
Validation is much the same. Something like the fact that a password confirmation needs to match the password the user entered does not concern the database at all. Or more appropriately, something like a validation on minimum amount of characters in the password does not concern the database, either; it will only ever receive a salted and hashed version of the password. Therefore it would be wrong to put this kind of validation on your entity. It belongs on the view model.
When I first started out using MVC, I used to add all the validation logic to my entity class and then go and repeat that same validation on my view model. Over time, I started to realize that very little of the validation actually needs to be on both. In fact, the largest majority of validation will should just go on your view model. It acts as a gatekeeper of sorts; if the data is good enough to get through your view model, it's good enough for your database. The types of validation that make sense on your entity is things like Required, but even that is really only necessary on a nullable field that must have a value by the time it gets to your database. Things like DateTimes are non-nullable by default, and EF is smart enough to make them non-nullable on the tables it creates by default. MaxLength is at times worthwhile if there should be a hard limit on the length of a text field in your database, but more often than not, nvarchars work just fine.
Anyways the point is that if you actually sit down and start evaluating the validation on your entity, you'll likely see that most of it is business logic that only applies to how your application works and not to how the data is represented at the database level. That's the key takeaway: on your entity, you only need the validation that's necessary for the database. And that's generally pretty thin.
Just an update. to get the two tier validation that i needed i had to mark all my entity model classes as IValidatable. Then i overrode the validate method for each class and invoked my fluent validation validator method there, passing back the errors needed. for the modelstate.addmodelerror i set the key as the field name and it mapped back okay. bit more code but it works. if i find a better way to do this ill update.

ASP.NET MVC Model Validation Error Localization Context

First of all, I have to say that I understand how Data Annotation -based Model Validation works in ASP.NET MVC4 and I have it successfully implemented with DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider. So I don't need assistance on setting it up.
But when it comes down to HtmlHelpers, I'm struggling with trying to figure the context of the error message. And by saying context, I mean which error we're talking about. Which Attribute returned the error?
What I can get, is the Key for the error and the current ErrorMessage but programmatically, there's nothing, that at least I'm aware of, that would communicate which error we're talking about. Whether it was Required attribute or some other attribute, there's not way that I can find how to distinguish them.
Let's open the scenario a little bit. I have custom HtmlHelpers to render ContentEditable elements. For example Html.ContentEditableValidationMessageFor(m => m.firstName);. It will output something like this:
<span contenteditable="true" data-valmsg-for="firstName" data-valmsg-replace="Please provide first name" class="field-validation-error">Please provide first name</span>
Now, I do have a jQuery plugin to handle and persist the changes in the contenteditable element and it will persist them into the backend. However, the UI has nothing that would say which error message we're talking about. Humans can easily see it's the RequiredAttribute, but programmatically there's no data to differentiate it from some MinLengthAttribute for example.
In this scenario, if I would simply use the data-valmsg-for="firstName" as the key for the localization, that'd return the same error message for all the errors concerning the same property.
To Round it Up
What would be the Best Practise, when ModelState is available, to emit a unique ID for ModelError? Considering I'm using ASP.NET MVC4 and DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider.
I can think of tons of ways to "Hack it Together" but I would like to use the ModelState and whatever MVC provides. If it all goes down to writing a custom ModelValidatorProvider, then I'm all open for it. As long as it is the best and most sustainable way of going about it. I'm all for Doing More Now and Less Later than Hacking it Now and Hacking it Forever to Keep It Working
Can you give some context around the need to know which rule triggered the validation error, could it be a case of you trying to do something you shouldn't have too?
In general I use FluentValidation (http://fluentvalidation.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=mvc) in place of Data Annotation validation for many reasons, de-cluttering models, unit testing validation logic, allowing vastly more complex validation that include business logic. If your free to use 3rd party libraries I'd give it a look as it has always solved any validation problems I've had in the past.
It lets you write c# code that deals with your model validation via a fluent API. It has an MVC extension that wires everything up for you so other than creating the models validation class there is little impact from then on. An example for your code snippet above would be...
RuleFor(modelname => modelname.FirstName).NotEmpty().WithMessage("lease provide first name");
Even implementing ModelValidatorProvider will not help, it is just a mechanism to provide ModelValidators based on Model Metadata. When during model binding process in a controller action ModelValidators are being invoked the result is just ModelValidationResult which only contains MemberName and a text Message.
I think there is a dirty way to find out which ModelValidator is failed by checking the error message like this:
var modelErrors = ModelState.Where(m => m.Value.Errors.Count > 0).Select(m => new { Name=m.Key , Errors=m.Value.Errors});
by checking ErrorMessage of Errors for each key in modelErrors against ValidatorProvider error messages you can find out the error belongs to which Validator.

When is it right to use ViewData instead of ViewModels?

Assuming you wanted to develop your Controllers so that you use a ViewModel to contain data for the Views you render, should all data be contained within the ViewModel? What conditions would it be ok to bypass the ViewModel?
The reason I ask is I'm in a position where some of the code is using ViewData and some is using the ViewModel. I want to distribute a set of guidelines in the team on when it's right to use the ViewData, and when it's just taking shortcuts. I would like opinions from other developers who have dealt with this so that I know my guidelines aren't just me being biased.
Just to further Fabian's comment; you can explicitly ensure viewdata is never used by following the steps outlined in this article. There's really no excuse not to use models for everything.
If you have no choice but to use ViewData (say on an existing project); at the very least use string constants to resolve the names to avoid using 'magic strings'. Something along the lines of: ViewData[ViewDataKeys.MyKey] = myvalue; Infact, I use this for just about anything that needs to be "string-based" (Session Keys, Cache Keys, VaryByCustom output cache keys, etc).
One approach you may wish to consider as your views become more complex, is to reserve the use of Models for input fields, and use ViewData to support anything else the View needs to render.
There are at least a couple of arguments to support this:
You have a master-page that requires some data to be present (e.g. something like the StackOverflow user information in the header). Applying a site-wide ActionFilter makes it easy to populate this information in ViewData after every action. To put it in model would require that every other Model in the site then inherit from a base Model (this may not seem bad initially, but it can become complicated quickly).
When you are validating a posted form, if there are validation errors you are probably going to want to rebind the model (with the invalid fields) back to the view and display validation messages. This is fine, as data in input fields is posted back and will be bound to the model, but what about any other data your view requires to be re-populated? (e.g. drop-down list values, information messages, etc) These will not be posted back, and it can become messy re-populating these onto the model "around" the posted-back input values. It is often simpler to have a method which populates the ViewData with the..view data.
In my experience I have found this approach works well.
And, in MVC3, the dynamic ViewModels means no more string-indexing!
I personally never use ViewData, everything goes through the Model, except when im testing something and i quickly need to be able to see the value on the view. Strongtyping!
In terms of ASP.NET MVC 2, ViewModel pattern is the preferred approach. The approach takes full advantage of compile time static type checking. This in combination with compiling mvc views will make your development work-flow much faster and more productive since errors are detected during build/compile time as opposed to run time.

Resources