We have something below in AutoMapper
public class AutomapperConfigure : IAutomapperConfigure
{
public void Config()
{
Mapper.Initialize(x =>
{
x.AddGlobalIgnore("EmployeeId");
});
}
}
I want something which will Just configure to ignore all unmapped properties from each and every destination mapping.
I dont want to manually create map for each and every type. I want it to be automatic. Automapper do auto mapping only when propeties in source and destination is same. If destination have one additional property mapping get failed and we are suppose to do manuall mapping like below.
Mapper.Initialize(x =>
{
x.CreateMap<EmployeeAddDTO, Employee>();
});
I want to avoid this. I want all mapping(Future things as well) to happen in one go.
ANy thoughts, suggestion OR Advice for some other automapper (appreciated)
Related
I have two models: Reptile and Species. A Reptile has a Species, stored as an ID in the database:
How should I set up the details controller action/view for Reptile so that it displays the Title property of the Species instead of the ID that the Reptile uses?
My initial thought was just to grab the data in the controller and pass it in the ViewBag, but this seems inappropriate, and overly complex when it's time to setup the list action.
What's the proper way to do this?
It seems like I need to make a view model, but what confuses me is how to properly design it so that there aren't too many database calls.
Here is my initial attempt at a ViewModel:
public class ReptileDetailsModel
{
[Required]
public String Species { get; set; }
//etc...
public ReptileDetailsModel(Reptile reptile)
{
this.Species = reptile.Species.Title;
// etc...
}
}
Another way to achieve the same thing in more generic way is to use AutoMapper
Few advantages I can think of:
Automatically map exact properties (you only need specify anything that is exception to the rule)
Centralized in one class / method, whatever
Ability to ignore, map to another classes properties, even custom logic
Non intrusive, it is up to you how / when you want to use it.
In your particular instance I would create a mapper something like
Mapper.CreateMap<Reptile, ReptileDetailsModel>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Species,
options => options.MapFrom(source => source.Species.Title));
This mapper info need to be registered somewhere. In MVC projects I have been involved, I would register a mapper into global.asax.
Then in your controller, you would want to invoke the mapper to map your reptile instance to your model
ReptileDetailsModel model = Mapper.Map<ReptileDetailsModel>(reptile);
There are many ways to use the AutoMapper within MVC, but this is probably a start.
I didn't realize it at the time, but I was using:
public ActionResult Index()
{
using (var db = new ModelsContainer())
{
return View(db.Reptiles.ToList());
}
}
This was causing the database (and thus model property) to expire before the view was rendered, causing this error (adding for search engines):
The ObjectContext instance has been disposed and can no longer be used for operations that require a connection.
Set the Species class as a model for your strongly typed Reptile View. Then display the Title property of it. Your action method should look like this:
public ActionResult Reptile(Reptile rep)
{
return View(db.Species.Where(x=>x.ID == rep.SpeciesID).Single());
}
this way you would only need to call database once in order to generate the view.
I was wondering if there is a way in groovy to change the static mapping section of a grails class at runtime. As of now my domain class looks like this:
class Result {
ObjectId id
String url
def Result(){
}
void addObjectProperty(String key, value){
this[key]=value
}
//No constrains defined yet.
static constraints = {
}
static mapWith="mongo"
static mapping = {
collection "results"
database "test"
}
}
Now lets just say I want to change the mapping section at runtime to:
static mapping = {
collection "xyz"
database "mydb"
}
Now when I call save() on an object it saves the result to mydb in the collection xyz. I bet there is a way in groovy to accomplish just that but since I'm new to groovy I'm having a hard time here ... it would be nice if someone could point me into the right direction.
Thanks a lot...
Note my comment above about the wisdom of doing this. That said, you can replace your mappings at runtime with Groovy's metaclassing functionality.
Result.metaClass.'static'.mapping = {
collection "myCollection"
database "myDatabase"
}
In Grails, the mapping block is a Groovy closure, so you're free to replace it with any other closure object whenever you'd like. This may have crazy unpredictable Hibernate side-effects or do nothing at all, as I do not know when the mapping closure is used to configure Hibernate in the Grails app lifecycle.
I have a search form that can search in different provider.
I started out by having a base controller
public SearchController : Controller
{
protected readonly ISearchService _searchService
public SearchController(ISearchService searchService)
{
_searchService= searchService;
}
public ActionResult Search(...)
{
// Use searchService to query and return a view.
}
}
And child controllers
TwitterController : SearchController
{
...
}
NewsController : SearchController
{
...
}
I use StructureMap to insert all my dependencies in the controller. With this setup, I was able to change the SearchService depending on the type of the controller being instanciated.
x.For<ISearchService>().ConditionallyUse(o =>
{
o.TheDefault.Is.OfConcreteType<NewsSearchService>();
o.If(c => c.ParentType == typeof(TwitterController))
.ThenIt.Is.OfConcreteType<TwitterSearchService>();
...
});
That even allowed me to set different Views for each controller, (just putting the corresponding folder (Twitter, News...) and the Parent controller is still handling all the Search, with a simple
return View(results)
which is displaying the correct view specific to twitter, news, or other
Now that was cool and looked great, I a single form and the different views are displayed in tabs on the same page. That's where it starts to get complicated with this approach. The form has to post to /Twitter to search in twitter, to /News to search in news... which means I should change the action parameter of the form depending on which tab I am and display the correct tab on when the form returns depending on.. the url? craziness follows.
If you have built something like this already or know what's the best approach to this, please advices are welcome.
Now I think I would have less pain using a parameter in the form and posting to a single controller. I am thinking of injecting the correct SearchService depending on this parameter. What would be the best approach? I thought of using a model binder,
So I would have my ActionMethod that look like this:
public ActionResult Search(ISearchService service, Query query)
{
var results = service.Find(query);
}
But I think would need to make a call like this in the ModelBinder
ObjectFactory.GetInstance(...);
Based on the querystring parameter that describe which provider to use, and that doesn't seem more elegant to me. I feel stuck, help :(.
Whenever you need to vary a dependency based on a run-time value, Abstract Factory is the general solution.
Instead of injecting ISearchService into your Controllers, inject an ISearchServiceFactory:
public SearchController : Controller
{
private readonly ISearchServiceFactory searchServiceFactory;
public SearchController(ISearchServiceFactory searchServiceFactory)
{
if (searchServiceFactory == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("searchServiceFactory");
}
this.searchServiceFactory = searchServiceFactory;
}
public ActionResult Search(...)
{
// Use searchServiceFactory to create an ISearchService based on
// run-time values, and use it to query and return a view.
}
}
It is not entirely clear to me which run-time value you need to vary on, but assuming that it's the Query, ISearchServiceFactory might be defined like this:
public interface ISearchServiceFactory
{
ISearchService Create(Query query);
}
I was trying to figure out how to use the abstract factory pattern and still let structuremap resolve all the dependencies of my components.
I believe that is the way I am going to implement it, but I submit this here to get some feedback if someone would read this.
As explain in the previous answer, I do not want to build the whole object graph depending on which provider I need in the Abstract factory.
ie :
class StatServiceFactory : IStatServiceFactory
{
public IStatService Create(string provider)
{
switch(provider)
{
case "blog":
return new StatService(IFacetRepository,ISearchManager,IConfigManager,BooleanQueryBuilder);
//How to resolve the Config, the SearchManager, and BooleanQueryBuilder?
//Add more abstract factories? It starts to get messy in my opinion...
}
}
}
What I can do is have the abstract factory use my container to create an instance of my search managers depending on a parameter (coming from the querystring in my case)
Structuremap allows to create named instances this way :
x.For<ISearchManager>().Use<AbcSearchManager>().Named("Abc");
x.For<ISearchManager>().Use<DefSearchManager>().Named("Def");
I need a way to inject the container in my Abstract factory.
I would probably wrap the container in a wrapper defined like this. That would keep me from leaking Structuremap into my project. I dont need more that those 2 features within the abstract factory anyway, but it is not necessary:
public interface IContainerWrapper
{
object GetInstance<T>();
object GetNamedInstance<T>(string key);
}
and the implementation :
public class ContainerImpl : IContainerWrapper
{
private readonly Container _container
public ContainerImpl(Container container)
{
_container = container;
}
...
}
And setup StructureMap to resolve dependencies to my abstract factory like that :
x.For<IContainer>.Use(new ContainerImpl(this));
x.For<IFactory>.Use<Factory>()
My factory would be then much simpler and would create my instance like that :
public class SearchmanagerFactory
{
private readonly IContainerWrapper _container;
public SearchmanagerFactory(IContainerProvider containerProvider)
{
_container = containerProvider;
}
public ISearchManager Create(string provider)
{
//eed to handle the bad input for provider.
return (ISearchManager)
_container.Resolve<ISearchManager>(provider);
}
}
That seems pretty clean this way :).
Thoughts?
This is more an extensive comment than an answer to explain why an AbstractFactory seems complicated. Here is something that looks closer from the reality:
class StatServiceFactory : IStatServiceFactory
{
public IStatService Create(string provider)
{
switch(provider)
{
case "blog":
return new StatService(IFacetRepository,ISearchManager,IConfigManager,BooleanQueryBuilder);
//How to resolve the Config, the SearchManager, and BooleanQueryBuilder?
//Add more abstract factories? It starts to get messy in my opinion...
}
}
}
The FacetRepository is the same for any provider, but the SearchManager changes, the ConfigManager changes, and the BooleanQueryBuilder is an abstract class with different implementation for different provider (because every API doesnt use the same keyword for their queries) All those dependencies are currently resolved by structuremap, based on the type of the controller.
I would really like to keep the benefit of StructureMap here, rather than using factories all the way, for each different pieces.'
Please see my edit at the end of my question for another suggestion to my problem.
I have a simple database from which I am generating Linq2SQL classes using a datacontext. In one part of my application I would like to load the entire relationship such that I get child records. In another part of the application I am passing that relation across the boundary between model and view and I would like to not pass the entire thing since the set of children is pretty large. Is there a way to not have these child classes exported in one section and be exported in another?
I am aware of setting the child property to False in the datacontext but that is a global change.
You can do it with the DataLoadOptions setting on the data context. You'll probably have some sort of builder class somewhere in your application. For the quickest and dirtiest solution, you could do something like the following...
public class SqlContextBuilder
{
public SqlContextBuilder(MyDataContext dataContext)
{
_dataContext = dataContext;
}
private readonly MyDataContext _dataContext;
public MyDataContext CreateEagerLoadingContext()
{
var options = new DataLoadOptions();
// set those options!
_dataContext.LoadOptions = options;
return _dataContext;
}
public MyDataContext CreateLazyLoadingContext()
{
// lazy loading happens by default
return _dataContext;
}
}
One of the solutions is to pass the relation as IQuerable. This will make sure that the relation is not executed until is it required. If you loop over the relation then it will be executed for each child.
Another technique might be to use DTO objects to create a ViewModel of which you like to pass. This means your ViewModel might be very similar to the interface.
For those that create ViewModels (for use by typed views) in ASP.NET MVC, do you prefer to fetch the data from a service/repository from within the ViewModel, or the controller classes?
For example, we started by having ViewModels essentially being DTOs and allowing our Controllers to fetch the data (grossly oversimplified example assumes that the user can only change employee name):
public class EmployeeViewModel
{
public String Name; //posted back
public int Num; //posted back
public IEnumerable<Dependent> Dependents; //static
public IEnumerable<Spouse> Spouses; //static
}
public class EmployeeController()
{
...
public ActionResult Employee(int empNum)
{
Models.EmployeeViewModel model = new Models.EmployeeViewModel();
model.Name = _empSvc.FetchEmployee(empNum).Name;
model.Num = empNum;
model.Dependents = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(empNum);
model.Spouses = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(empNum);
return View(model);
}
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Employee(Models.EmployeeViewModel model)
{
if (!_empSvc.ValidateAndSaveName(model.Num, model.Name))
{
model.Dependents = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(model.Num);
model.Spouses = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(model.Num);
return View(model);
}
this.RedirectToAction(c => c.Index());
}
}
This all seemed fine until we started creating large views (40+ fields) with many drop downs and such. Since the screens would have a GET and POST action (with POST returning a view if there was a validation error), we'd be duplicating code and making ViewModels larger than they probably should be.
I'm thinking the alternative would be to Fetch the data via the Service within the ViewModel. My concern is that we'd then have some data populated from the ViewModel and some from the Controller (e.g. in the example above, Name would be populated from the Controller since it is a posted value, while Dependents and Spouses would be populated via some type of GetStaticData() function in the ViewModel).
Thoughts?
I encountered the same issue. I started creating classes for each action when the code got too big for the action methods. Yes you will have some data retrieval in classes and some in the controller methods. The alternative is to have all the data retrieval in classes, but half the classes you won't really need, they will have been created for consistency sake or have all the data retrieval in the controller methods, but again, some of those methods will be too complex and needed to have been abstracted into classes... so pick your poison. I would rather have a little inconsistency and have the right solution for the job.
As for putting behavior into the ViewModel, I don't, the point of the ViewModel is to be a thin class for setting and extracting values from the View.
There have been cases where I've put conversion methods in the ViewModel. For instance I need to convert the ViewModel to the corresponding entity or I need to load the ViewModel with data from the Entity.
To answer your question, I prefer to retrieve data from with in the controller/action methods.
Typically with DropDowns, I create a dropdown service. DropDowns tend to be the same data that spans views. With the dropdowns in a service I can use them on other views and/or Cache them.
Depending on the layout, 40 plus fields could create a cluttered view. Depending the type of data, I would try to span that many fields across multiple views with some sort of tabbed or wizard interface.
There's more than that ;-) You can fetch in model binder or action filter. For the second option, check Jimmy Bogard's blog somewhere around here. I personally do it in model binders. I use ViewModel like this: My custom ASP.NET MVC entity binding: is it a good solution?. It is processed by my custom model binder:
public object BindModel(ControllerContext c, BindingContext b)
{
var id = b.ValueProvider[b.ModelName]; // don't remember exact syntax
var repository = ServiceLocator.GetInstance(GetRepositoryType(b.ModelType));
var obj = repository.Get(id);
if (obj == null)
b.ModelState.AddModelError(b.ModelName, "Not found in database");
return obj;
}
public ActionResult Action(EntityViewModel<Order> order)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
...;
}
You can also see an example of model binder doing repository access in S#arp Architecture.
As for static data in view models, I'm still exploring approaches. For example, you can have your view models remember the entities instead of lists, and
public class MyViewModel
{
public MyViewModel(Order order, IEmployeesSvc _svc)
{
}
public IList<Employee> GetEmployeesList()
{
return _svc.GetEmployeesFor(order.Number);
}
}
You decide how you inject _svc into ViewModel, but it's basically the same as you do for controller. Just beware that ViewModel is also created by MVC via parameterless constructor, so you either use ServiceLocator or extend MVC for ViewModel creation - for example, inside your custom model binder. Or you can use Jimmy Bogard's approach with AutoMapper which does also support IoC containers.
The common approach here is that whenever I see repetative code, I look to eliminate it. 100 controller actions doing domain-viewmodel marshalling plus repository lookup is a bad case. Single model binder doing it in generic way is a good one.
I wouldn't be fetching data from the database in your ViewModel. The ViewModel exists to promote separation of concerns (between your View and your Model). Tangling up persistance logic in there kind of defeats the purpose.
Luckily, the ASP.NET MVC framework gives us more integration points, specifically the ModelBinder.
I've got an implementation of a generic ModelBinder pulling information from the service layer at:-
http://www.iaingalloway.com/going-further-a-generic-servicelayer-modelbinder
It doesn't use a ViewModel, but that's easily fixed. It's by no means the only implementation. For a real-world project, you're probably better off with a less generic, more customised solution.
If you're diligent, your GET methods don't even need to know that the service layer exists.
The solution probably looks something like:-
Controller action method:-
public ActionResult Details(MyTypeIndexViewModel model)
{
if( ModelState.IsValid )
{
return View(model);
}
else
{
// Handle the case where the ModelState is invalid
// usually because they've requested MyType/Details/x
// and there's no matching MyType in the repository
// e.g. return RedirectToAction("Index")
}
}
ModelBinder:-
public object BindModel
(
ControllerContext controllerContext,
BindingContext bindingContext
)
{
// Get the Primary Key from the requestValueProvider.
// e.g. bindingContext.ValueProvider["id"]
int id = ...;
// Get an instance of your service layer via your
// favourite dependancy injection framework.
// Or grab the controller's copy e.g.
// (controllerContext.Controller as MyController).Service
IMyTypeService service = ...;
MyType myType = service.GetMyTypeById(id)
if (myType == null)
{
// handle the case where the PK has no matching MyType in the repository
// e.g. bindingContext.ModelState.AddModelError(...)
}
MyTypeIndexViewModel model = new MyTypeIndexViewModel(myType);
// If you've got more repository calls to make
// (e.g. populating extra fields on the model)
// you can do that here.
return model;
}
ViewModel:-
public class MyTypeIndexViewModel
{
public MyTypeIndexViewModel(MyType source)
{
// Bind all the properties of the ViewModel in here, or better
// inherit from e.g. MyTypeViewModel, bind all the properties
// shared between views in there and chain up base(source)
}
}
Build your service layer, and register your ModelBinder as normal.
Here's another solution: http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/06/29/how-we-do-mvc-view-models.aspx
Main points there:
Mapping is done by a mediator - in this case it is AutoMapper but it can be your own class (though more to code). This keeps both Domain and ViewModel concentrated on the domain/presentation logic. The mediator (mapper) will contain (mostly automatic) logic for mapping, including injected services.
Mapping is applied automatically, all you do is tell the action filter the source/destination types - very clean.
(Seems to be important for you) AutoMapper supports nested mappings/types, so you can have your ViewModel combined of several independent view models, so that your "screen DTO" is not messy.
Like in this model:
public class WholeViewModel
{
public Part1ViewModel ModelPart1 { get; set; }
public Part2ViewModel ModelPart2 { get; set; }
}
you re-use mappings for specific parts of your View, and you don't write any new line of code, since there're already mappings for the partial view models.
If you don't want AutoMapper, you have have IViewModelMapper interfaces, and then your IoC container will help your action filter to find appropriate
container.Resolve(typeof(IViewModelMapper<>).MakeGenericType(mysourcetype, mydesttype))
and it will also provide any required external services to that mapper (this is possible with AutoMapper, too). But of course AutoMapper can do recursions and anyway, why write additional AutoMapper ;-)
Consider passing your services into the custom ViewModel on its constructor (ala Dependency Injection). That removes the model population code from your controller and allows it to focus on controlling the logical flow of the application. Custom ViewModels are an ideal place to abstract the preparation of things like SelectLists that your droplists will depend on.
Lots of code in the controller for things like retrieving data isn't considered a best practice. The controller's primary responsibility is to "control" the flow of the application.
Submitting this one late... Bounty is almost over. But...
Another mapper to look at is Automapper: http://www.codeplex.com/AutoMapper
And overview on how to use it: http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/01/22/automapper-the-object-object-mapper.aspx
I really like it's syntax.
// place this somewhere in your globals, or base controller constructor
Mapper.CreateMap<Employee, EmployeeViewModel>();
Now, in your controller, I would use multiple viewmodels. This enforces DRY by allowing you to reuse those viewmodels elsewhere in your application. I would not bind them all to 1 viewmodel. I would refactor to something like:
public class EmployeeController()
{
private IEmployeeService _empSvc;
private ISpouseService _peopleSvc;
public EmployeeController(
IEmployeeService empSvc, ISpouseService peopleSvc)
{
// D.I. hard at work! Auto-wiring up our services. :)
_empSvc = empSvc;
_peopleSvc = peopleSvc;
// setup all ViewModels here that the controller would use
Mapper.CreateMap<Employee, EmployeeViewModel>();
Mapper.CreateMap<Spouse, SpouseViewModel>();
}
public ActionResult Employee(int empNum)
{
// really should have some validation here that reaches into the domain
//
var employeeViewModel =
Mapper.Map<Employee, EmployeeViewModel>(
_empSvc.FetchEmployee(empNum)
);
var spouseViewModel =
Mapper.Map<Spouses, SpousesViewModel>(
_peopleSvc.FetchSpouseByEmployeeID(empNum)
);
employeeViewModel.SpouseViewModel = spouseViewModel;
return View(employeeViewModel);
}
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Employee(int id, FormCollection values)
{
try
{
// always post to an ID, which is the employeeID
var employee = _empSvc.FetchEmployee(id);
// and bind using the built-in UpdateModel helpers.
// this will throw an exception if someone is posting something
// they shouldn't be posting. :)
UpdateModel(employee);
// save employee here
this.RedirectToAction(c => c.Index());
}
catch
{
// check your domain model for any errors.
// check for any other type of exception.
// fail back to the employee screen
RedirectToAction(c => c.Employee(id));
}
}
}
I generally try to stay away from saving multiple entities on a controller action. Instead, I would refactor the employee domain object to have AddSpouse() and SaveSpouse() methods, that would take an object of Spouse. This concept is known as AggregateRoots, controlling all dependancies from the root - which is the Employee() object. But, that is just me.