I'm working with Entity Framework with a database-first approach. I already defined the model inside my application. Now I'm working with controllers and views. I used scaffolding in order to create controllers. Now I want to create rows.
Let's say I want to create employees, and let's say the DBA and EF made this possible:
public partial class TBL_EMPLOYEE
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public TBL_EMPLOYEE()
{
this.TBL_EMPLOYEE = new HashSet<TBL_EMPLOYEE>();
}
public int EMPLOYEE_ID { get; set; }
public String CO_WORKER_NUMBER { get; set; }
public string NAME { get; set; }
public string LAST_NAME { get; set; }
public string SALARY { get; set; }
public string PHONE_NUMBER { get; set; }
public string EMAIL { get; set; }
public string { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
}
Now, I need a view to create an employee, let's call this view VIEW 1
In this view, the user only needs to specify name and last name values. Both are required.
Now, in this VIEW 1 case I could use the following data annotations attributes in the same class, that'd be:
[Required]
public string NAME { get; set; }
[Required]
public string LAST_NAME { get; set; }
Now, let's go to the next case. I need another View, let's call this VIEW 2
In this one, the user needs to specify all values for all attributes. All of them are required except for name and last name.
THE REAL QUESTION
How can I use the same model class for both views? The example above here might seem a bit silly and trivial validations but I've been in bigger projects where entities are bigger and the idea of having different ViewModel classes is just so much work.
I've stumbled upon this in my .NET developments, to the point I had to create a ViewModel class per view in order to be specific with what the user needs to input and their validation. Is this the only way?
To avoid duplicating models with minor variations, try this:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18898112/6850962
Basically, create a base model with data annotations that apply in all situations (eg: DisplayName) and then extend the model for variations (eg: Required attribute).
If you are trying to use your Entity Framework entities approach, I wouldn't put validation attributes on those entities. I would either:
create separate distinct classes and then copy data from the EF entities to the models, and vice versa on update (either by writing the code explicitly, or using a tool like AutoMapper or many others). Then you can define the validation rules anyway you want. Unfortunately this approach does tightly couple validation to the model and thus model reuse may not be as possible.
Use a more fluid validation framework like FluentValidation (https://github.com/JeremySkinner/FluentValidation). The benefit to this is that you define an external class with the rules internal, which can be applied differently depending on the situation. The model may still need some indicator on the model itself to figure out which rules apply, but this is another functional approach to handling the scenario you describe.
While researching whether or not ASP.NET MVC is suited for my next website, I've come across an annoying issue.
I have followed ASP.NET MVC since version 2, and it's gotten better. For instance, it's now fairly easy to get going with migrations in the entity framework with code first, which used to be a hassle.
This means that I now can get running with a database migrations and code first within half an hour (as I usually don't remember the steps involved, I have to follow a guide I wrote).
Now, fairly early on I always get a many-to-many relationship between entities (e.g. tags and posts) in my database, and what I've found is that getting this relationship exposed via MVC framework is surprisingly complicated! Example from asp.net Example from mikesdotnetting
It involves special methods to retrieve the relationship's data that is not an inherent part of the framework.
Is there really no better/easier way of treating the many-to-many relationship?
You should add a virtual key word to the Many port
public class Post
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags {get;set;}
}
public class Tag
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Post> Posts {get;set;}
}
Here is the situation I am struggling with.
I have an Object Model:
public class MyModel
{
public string Prop1 {get; set;}
public string Prop2 {get; set;}
//etc
}
Then I have Object ModelView
public class MyModelView
{
public MyModel MyModelObject;
public SelectList PropToBeSelected1 {get; set;}
public SelectList PropTobeSelected2 {get; set;}
//etc
}
I have the MyModelRepository class as well that does the delete, update operations for MyModel.
All good and clear so far.
Question:
PropToBeSelected1 and PropTobeSelected2 are drop down lists whose contents come from the database. Should the methods retrieving these contents be put in my MyModelRepository? Or should I create another repository for ViewModel?
Thank you.
First you really don't want domian-ish objects in your viewModel. Your viewModel should be clean with only primitives (like strings, ints... etc). So I'd suggest using a AutoMapper to map your two string props to your viewModel.
With the select list, there are many ways to go about this but I can imagine if they are lists of properties then they are not actual entities, but value objects instead. In this case creating a repository for them is over kill and boarders bad design.
I'd put the 'get' of the property lists in your MyModelRepository. Something like
_myModelRepository.getProperties1For(myModel);
Then AutoMap again on to get your select list.
Edit:
Like #M.Radwan pointed out for complex domain models I'll make viewModels insdie viewModels for easy of mapping.
Domain Model--
public class User : Entity
{
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
public class Address
{
public string Street { get; set; }
public string Zip { get; set; }
}
would map to
public class DetailsViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public AddressViewModel Address { get; set; }
public class AddressViewModel
{
public string Street { get; set; }
public string Zip { get; set; }
}
}
which in our experience has been the only reason to add any complexity to your viewModel. We will put SelectLists in our viewModel though but lately we've been using IEnumerables of inner viewModels and calling custom EditorFor or DisplayFor to turn them into a dropdown / list of checkboxes / radio buttons.
The answer is NO, you should not make any repository for them if you really need them with this view. so they probably are value objects as #jasonhooten said and they should connected to the main aggregate object that used by the repository
Finally I don't decide the ViewModel structure until I finish the view and make it working first and this why I founder and create DevMagicFake, by using DevMagicFake you will delay all decisions of the design regarding the structure of the ViewModel or the repository or how you will use service layer, all this will be delayed after full complete your view and make it working first as BDD (Behavior Driven Development) and TDD (Test Driven Development) so you can take the right decisions of the design and the object model itself
So I just create the action method as the following
public ActionResult List(MyModelView myModelView)
{
FakeRepository<MyModelView> repository = new FakeRepository<MyModelView>();
repository.Add(myModelView);
}
This fake repository will enable me to save and retrieve my whole model even it's a complex model until I finish and complete the whole view and make it working first, and then I start thanking on how the real design and the real repository should looks like, and do on
For more information about DevMagicFake and this approach see this link
DevMagicFake on CodePlex
I have a set of classes as my domain objects.
I have a set of configuration files to map these objects (EntityTypeConfiguration<>).
When I add a property to any of the domain objects without mapping to a column, the dbcontext attempts to query for the column, ignoring the fact that it is not mapped.
I must be missing a setting either in the configuration code or the dbcontext code. I do not want to add an attribute to the poco class (decorating the pocos tie them to a specific persistence implementation, which I wish to avoid).
On the call against the IQueryable to populate a ticket object, the call fails with the message:
Invalid column name 'NotInDatabase'.
public class Ticket
{
public Ticket()
{
}
public virtual int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public virtual string Title
{
get;
set;
}
public virtual string Description
{
get;
set;
}
public string NotInDatabase
{
get;
set;
}
}
internal class TicketConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<Ticket>
{
public TicketConfiguration()
{
ToTable("ticket_table_name");
HasKey(o => o.Id)
.Property(o => o.Id)
.HasColumnName("ticketId")
.HasDatabaseGeneratedOption(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)
.IsRequired();
Property(o => o.Title).HasColumnName("TicketTitle");
Property(o => o.Description).HasColumnName("TicketDescription");
}
}
Note:
Please do not suggest using "Database First" or "Model First" for my situation. I want to map poco objects to the database using the features of code first, even though I have an existing db structure. I am comparing this to nhibernate and really want to stick to a similar structure (since Microsoft "adopted" fluent nhibernate's approach, it's pretty easy to compare apples to apples).
Thanks!
.Ignore should do the trick or by attribute it's called [NotMapped]
I have a standard Domain Layer entity:
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public decimal Price { get; set;}
}
which has some kind of validation attributes applied:
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[NotEmpty, NotShorterThan10Characters, NotLongerThan100Characters]
public string Name { get; set; }
[NotLessThan0]
public decimal Price { get; set;}
}
As you can see, I have made up these attributes completely. Which validation framework (NHibernate Validator, DataAnnotations, ValidationApplicationBlock, Castle Validator, etc) in use here is not important.
In my client layer, I also have a standard setup where I don't use the Domain entities themselves, but instead map them to ViewModels (aka DTO) which my view layer uses:
public class ProductViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public decimal Price { get; set;}
}
Let's then say that I want my client/view to be able to perform some basic property-level validations.
The only way I see I can do this is to repeat the validation definitions in the ViewModel object:
public class ProductViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
// validation attributes copied from Domain entity
[NotEmpty, NotShorterThan10Characters, NotLongerThan100Characters]
public string Name { get; set; }
// validation attributes copied from Domain entity
[NotLessThan0]
public decimal Price { get; set;}
}
This is clearly not satisfactory, as I have now repeated business logic (property-level validation) in the ViewModel (DTO) layer.
So what can be done?
Assuming that I use an automation tool like AutoMapper to map my Domain entities to my ViewModel DTOs, wouldn't it also be cool to somehow transfer the validation logic for the mapped properties to the ViewModel as well?
The questions are:
1) Is this a good idea?
2) If so, can it be done? If not, what are the alternatives, if any?
Thank you in advance for any input!
If you're using something supporting DataAnnotations, you should be able to use a metadata class to contain your validation attributes:
public class ProductMetadata
{
[NotEmpty, NotShorterThan10Characters, NotLongerThan100Characters]
public string Name { get; set; }
[NotLessThan0]
public decimal Price { get; set;}
}
and add it in the MetadataTypeAttribute on both the domain entity & DTO:
[MetadataType(typeof(ProductMetadata))]
public class Product
and
[MetadataType(typeof(ProductMetadata))]
public class ProductViewModel
This won't work out of the box with all validators - you may need to extend your validation framework of choice to implement a similar approach.
The purpose of validation is to ensure that data coming into your application meets certain criteria, with that in mind, the only place it makes sense to validate property constraints, like those you have identified here, is at the point where you accept data from an untrusted source ( i.e. the user ).
You can use something like the "money pattern" to elevate validation into your domain type system and use these domain types in the view model where it makes sense. If you have more complex validation (i.e. you are expressing business rules that require greater knowledge than that expressed in a single property), these belong in methods on the domain model that apply the changes.
In short, put data validation attributes on your view models and leave them off your domain models.
Why not use an interface to express your intent? Eg:
public interface IProductValidationAttributes {
[NotEmpty, NotShorterThan10Characters, NotLongerThan100Characters]
string Name { get; set; }
[NotLessThan0]
decimal Price { get; set;}
}
It turns out that AutoMapper may be able to do this for us automagically, which is the best case scenario.
AutoMapper-users: Transfer validation attributes to the viewmodel?
http://groups.google.com/group/automapper-users/browse_thread/thread/efa1d551e498311c/db4e7f6c93a77302?lnk=gst&q=validation#db4e7f6c93a77302
I haven't got around to trying out the proposed solutions there, but intend to shortly.
If you use hand-written domain entities, why not put your domain entities in their own assembly and use that same assembly both on the client and server. You can reuse the same validations.
I've been considering this as well for a while now. I totally understand Brad's reply. However, let's assume I want to use another validation framework that is suitable for annotating both domain entities and view models.
The only solution I can come up with on paper that still works with attributes would be to create another attribute that "points" to a domain entity's property that you are mirroring in your view model. Here's an example:
// In UI as a view model.
public class UserRegistration {
[ValidationDependency<Person>(x => x.FirstName)]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[ValidationDependency<Person>(x => x.LastName)]
public string LastName { get; set; }
[ValidationDependency<Membership>(x => x.Username)]
public string Username { get; set; }
[ValidationDependency<Membership>(x => x.Password)]
public string Password { get; set; }
}
A framework like xVal could possibly be extended to handle this new attribute and run the validation attributes on the dependency class' property, but with your view model's property value. I just haven't had time to flesh this out more.
Any thoughts?
First of all, there is no notion of "standard" domain entity. For me, standard domain entity does not have any setters to begin with. If you take that approach, you can have more meaningful api, that actually conveys something about your domain. So, you can have application service that processes your DTO, creates commands that you can execute directly against you domain objects, like SetContactInfo, ChangePrice etc. Each one of these can raise ValidationException, which in turn you can collect in your service and present to the user. You can still leave your attributes on the properties of dto for simple attribute/property level validation. For anything else, consult your domain. And even if this is CRUD application, i would avoid exposing my domain entities to presentation layer.
Disclaimer: I know this is an old discussion, but it was closest to what I was looking for: Keeping DRY by reusing validation attributes. I hope it is not too far from the original question.
In my situation I wanted to make error messages availible in .NET views and in other viewmodels. Our entities have little to no business logic and are mainly targeted for data storage. Instead we have a large viewmodel with validation and business logic were I want to reuse error messages. Since the users are only conserned with error messages, I find this to be relevant as that is what is important to maintain easily.
I could not find a feasible way to remove logic from the partial ViewModels, but I found a way to convey the same ErrorMessage, such that it can be maintained from a single point. Since ErrorMessages are tied to the view, it can just as well be part of the ViewModel. Consts are considered static members, so defining the error messages as public string constants, we can access them outside the class.
public class LargeViewModel
{
public const string TopicIdsErrorMessage = "My error message";
[Required(ErrorMessage = TopicIdsErrorMessage)]
[MinimumCount(1, ErrorMessage = TopicIdsErrorMessage)]
[WithValidIndex(ErrorMessage = TopicIdsErrorMessage)]
public List<int> TopicIds { get; set; }
}
public class PartialViewModel
{
[Required(ErrorMessage = LargeViewModel.TopicIdsErrorMessage]
public List<int> TopicIds { get; set; }
}
In our project we were using custom html for dropdownlists, such that we could not use #Html.EditorFor helper in razor, thus we could not use unobtrusive validation. With the error message availible we could now apply the necessary attributes:
#(Html.Kendo().DropDownList()
.Name("TopicIds")
.HtmlAttributes(new {
#class = "form-control",
data_val = "true",
data_val_required = SupervisionViewModel.TopicIdsErrorMessage
})
)
Warning: You might need to recompile all related projects that rely on const values...