I would like to have my Controller implement my data interface that returns custom objects. All the objects are serializable and decorated by JSON attributes. So I would like to have my controller method simply be that:
public class MyController : Controller, IMyInterface
{
public Foo[] GetFoosByName(string name)
{
return new Foo[]{new Foo(name), new Foo(name)}
}
}
If I do it I get simply "Foo[]" response. What I'd like to get is JSON-serialized Foo objects.
I can easily achieve this by changing my response to be JsonResult:
public JsonResult GetFoosByName(string name)
{
return Json(new Foo[]{new Foo(name), new Foo(name)});
}
But then I won't be able to implement IMyInterface in the way that is easily maintainable.
Any ideas on how I can automatically get the behavior as I was returning JsonResult, but still keeping original return types?
Generally I would recommend against such a pattern. An MVC Controller should ideally be kind of a top-most layer, and I think it should not implement interfaces. You should implement such interfaces in a service layer, below the MVC Controllers.
However, if you still want to do it so, you can use explicit implementation like this.
public class MyController : Controller, IMyInterface
{
public JsonResult GetFoosByName(string name)
{
return Json(((IMyInterface)this).GetFoosByName(name));
}
Foo[] IMyInterface.GetFoosByName(string name)
{
return new[] { new Foo(name) };
}
}
Related
In my ASP.Net Core MVC 6 solution I have two sets of controllers. One set contains the webpages with their regular views. Another set contains the API controllers.
To avoid duplicating db logic the web controllers are using the API controllers. Currently I am creating an instance of the required controller manually by handing it a DbContext as constructor argument. This is the DbContext given to web controller by dependency injection.
But whenever I add another constructor parameter to the API controller I need to modify all web controllers that use this API controller.
How can I use the dependency injection system builtin to ASP.Net 5 to create an instance of the required API controller for me? Then it would fill in the required constructor parameters automatically.
One solution could be to move the db logic from the API controllers to a separate layer and call that from both API and web controllers. This would not solve my problem since the new layer would still need the same parameters and I'm not fan of the unnecessary wiring.
Another solution would be to have the web controllers access the API through a web call, but that just adds complexity to the app.
Today I am doing this:
public IActionResult Index()
{
using (var foobarController = new Areas.Api.Controllers.FoobarController(
// All of these has to be in the constructor of this controller so they can be passed on to the ctor of api controller
_dbContext, _appEnvironment,
_userManager, _roleManager,
_emailSender, _smsSender))
{
var model = new IndexViewModel();
model.Foo = foobarController.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = true, Bar = false });
model.Bar = foobarController.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = false, Bar = true });
return View(model);
}
}
And I am hoping for something like this:
(This example does not work.)
using (var foobarController = CallContextServiceLocator.Locator.ServiceProvider.GetService<Areas.Api.Controllers.FoobarController>())
{
var model = new IndexViewModel();
model.Foo = foobarController.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = true, Bar = false });
model.Bar = foobarController.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = false, Bar = true });
return View(model);
}
How can I use the dependency injection system builtin to ASP.Net 5 to create an instance of the required API controller for me?
In your Startup.cs can tell the MVC to register all your controllers as services.
services.AddMvc().AddControllersAsServices();
Then you can simply inject the desired controller in your other controller via the DI mechanism and invoke its action method.
Don't do it. Move that logic to another component that gets shared between the 2 controllers. The controller is dispatched to by the framework as a result of an HTTP call, its not your public API surface. In general, your controllers should be used as a the place where the HTTP request is transformed into business objects. Operations on those objects should be delegate to another layer (especially if it needs to be used from more than one place in your application).
To be able to use a controller from another controller you need to:
Register the controller in Startup.cs ConfigureServices: services.AddTransient <Areas.Api.Controllers.FoobarController, Areas.Api.Controllers.FoobarController>();
You must pass the controller you want to access as a ctor parameter into the main controller.
If you need to access local properties in the controller such as User or Url there are two ways to do this.
The first way is to use DI to get an instance of IHttpContextAccessor to access User and IUrlHelper to access Url objects:
public class FoobarController : Controller
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _dbContext;
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor _httpContextAccessor;
private readonly IUrlHelper _urlHelper;
public FoobarController(ApplicationDbContext dbContext, IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor, IUrlHelper _urlHelper, [...])
{
_dbContext = dbContext;
_httpContextAccessor = httpContextAccessor;
_urlHelper = urlHelper;
}
public FoobarResponse List(FoobarRequest request)
{
var userId = _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext.User.GetUserId();
var response = new FoobarResponse();
response.List = _dbContext.Foobars.Where(f => f.UserId == userId).ToList();
response.Thumb =
return response;
}
}
The second way is to set it in the calling controller:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private Areas.Api.Controllers.FoobarController _foobarController;
public HomeController(Areas.Api.Controllers.FoobarController foobarController)
{
_foobarController = foobarController;
}
private void InitControllers()
{
// We can't set this at Ctor because we don't have our local copy yet
// Access to Url
_foobarController.Url = Url;
// Access to User
_foobarController.ActionContext = ActionContext;
// For more references see https://github.com/aspnet/Mvc/blob/6.0.0-rc1/src/Microsoft.AspNet.Mvc.ViewFeatures/Controller.cs
// Note: This will change in RC2
}
public IActionResult Index()
{
InitControllers();
var model = new IndexViewModel();
model.Foo = _foobarController.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = true, Bar = false });
model.Bar = _foobarController.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = false, Bar = true });
return View(model);
}
}
The source code for ASP.Net Core MVC6 RC1 Controller can be found here. It is however undergoing heavy rewrite for RC2 and with it the properties that has to be copied to get access to User and Url will change.
#B12Toaster is correct for MVC but if you only use ApiController you should do it like this:
services.AddControllers().AddControllersAsServices();
Why would your new layer need wiring up? Why not take in an object into both controllers and call a method on that object. The DI container could resolve the dependencies of this new object without duplicated wiring couldn't it?
ie you could have this:
public class MvcController
{
SharedComponent sharedComponent;
public MvcController(SharedComponent sharedComponent)
{
this.sharedComponent = sharedComponent;
}
public IActionResult Index()
{
var model = new IndexViewModel();
model.Foo = shredComponent.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = true, Bar = false });
model.Bar = shredComponent.List(new FoobarRequest() { Foo = false, Bar = true });
return View(model);
}
}
//Repeat this for the API controller
public class SharedComponent
{
public SharedComponent(DBContext dbContext, AppEnvironment appEnvironment, UserManager userManager, RoleManager roleManager,
EmailSender emailSender, SmsSender smsSender)
{
...Store in fields for later usage
}
}
I'd have to agree with others that injecting the controller may not be the best route. Mostly because it marries the business logic with ASP.Net instead of treating it like an IO device like, in my opinion, it should be.
Let's say we have an interface that looks like this:
public interface ICalculator {
int Add(int left, int right);
}
and we have an implementation that stores the business logic:
public class MyCalculator : ICalculator {
public int Add(int left, int right) => left + right;
}
This implementation can be used as a background service, within the same process as a WPF application, or as an ASP.NET WebAPI controller. It would look something like this:
[ApiController]
[Route("api/{controller}")]
public void CalculatorController : Controller, ICalculator {
private readonly ICalculator _calculator;
public CalculatorController(ICalculator calc) => _calculator = calc;
[Route("Add")]
public int Add(int left, int right) => _calculator.Add(left, right);
}
If that controller has a dependency on a repository you can inject that interface too. Personally I like defining a collection of repositories (like IUserRepository for example) and injecting only what is needed instead of the entire DbContext.
public CalculatorController(ICalculator calculator, IDbContext db) { }
There's nothing wrong with a controller depending on more than just the thing it is decorating. Just make sure you have a set of tests that assert various things. For example you could assert that when a particular controller method is called the particular method on the other interface is also called.
Personally I find this approach a better fit. It's okay to use certain technologies but they should be kept at arm's length from the business rules. A developer should be able to take the business rules that govern a particular part of the code and switch from a WCF service to ASP.NET WebAPI trivially.
I've personally been a part of a couple projects where we had to switch from one database technology to another (SQL Server to CouchDB) and one where our micro-services needed to be running as restful Web API services instead of Windows services. If you architect things this way those types of projects become relatively trivial compared to how things are normally composed.
I'd like to create a ViewHelper to localize my ASP.NET MVC application. Something like this:
public class Translator
{
private readonly ITranslationRepository _repo;
public Translator(ITranslationRepository repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
public static string Translate(TranslationEnum translationEnum)
{
return _repo.GetTranslation(translationEnum, Session.LanguageId);
}
}
Usage in a (Razor) View looks like this:
<p>#Translator.Translate(TranslationEnum.WelcomeMessage)</p>
Now the problem is of course, I cannot make the Translate method static, because I need to access the instance variable _repo.
How can I inject the repository into a ViewHelper so I can use it in a View like above?
The responsibility of the view is just to transform the data that comes back from the controller to a HTML structure. Views are hard (to impossible) to test automatically, so best is to keep them as dumb as possible.
Instead of using the Translator in your view, inject it into your controller and let the controller call the Translator. This solves a range of problems:
It keeps the view simple.
It improves maintainability.
It improves testability.
It improves the verifiability of your object graphs (because you don't fall back on static method calls or the Service Locator anti-pattern).
Long story short, add a property to the controller's view model and return that to the view. Example:
public class HomeController : Controller {
private readonly ITranslator translator;
public HomeController(ITranslator translator) {
this.translator = translator
}
public ActionResult Index() {
this.View(new HomeViewModel {
WelcomeMessage = this.translator.Translate(TranslationEnum.WelcomeMessage)
});
}
}
And your view can look as follows:
#model HomeViewModel
<p>#Model.WelcomeMessage</p>
first of all, the intention of your design is wrong because it violates the single responsibility principal. Why is a translator dependent on repository?
secondly, why do you need a translator, you can use asp.net globalization?
click me We should not reinvent the wheel.
thirdly, all the html helpers are extension methods which have to be static.
so my suggestion is if you have to use translator, please refactor the Translator class, decouple the repository from it then create a extension methods from there.
or you can use globalization, it sounds horrible to start with but trust me it's not as hard as it looks.
public class Translator
{
private static ITranslationRepository _repo;
public static ITranslationRepository Repo
{
get { /*check null here before return*/ return _repo; } set { _repo = Repo; }
}
public Translator()
{
}
public static string Translate(TranslationEnum translationEnum)
{
return _repo.GetTranslation(translationEnum, Session.LanguageId);
}
}
I am unit-testing my controller.
In one of my controller methods I am setting Session variables:
public void Index()
{ Session["foo"] = "bar";
return View();
}
How can I unit-test this? The problem is that the Session property is null when testing. Injecting is not possible because the Session property is readonly.
I don't want to use any third-party tool or mocking.
Simply dont use things like Session["foo"] in your controller methods. Best practice is keep action methods unaware of any context-like global objects. Everything your action method needs should be given to her in form of arguments. Note that built-in mechanism of model binding works exactly like that - you dont use Request.Form[], you let "somebody behind the scene" pass it to your action as argument.
Now for the session you can do the same - write you very simple ValueProvider which will know how to recognize arguments you want to fill from session, and you are done. In production your actions will work with session, in test you cant simply pass them any values you want as arguments.
For inspiration look at this http://www.prideparrot.com/blog/archive/2012/7/how_to_create_a_custom_session_value_provider
Injecting is not possible because the Session property is readonly.
This means you cannot use setter injection, but could you use constructor injection, ie add a constructor for your controller that is something like:
MyController(Session session)
{
m_session = session;
// then call your main constructor
}
Session getSession()
{
return m_session;
}
You can then use this separate constructor during testing.
I agree with #rouen. do not directly use Session["foo"]. But I think having ValueProvider ans might not be a practical solution, as we only store very few variables, and these values may be and most likely not ur full model.
So my approach is something similar to what Vic Smith suggests but a much more IOC (and Mock) friendly.
I would create a provider (i.e a service) to retrieve the session variables
public class SessionVariableProvider : ISessionVariableProvider
{
public object GetSessionValue(string key)
{
if (!HttpContext.Current.Session.IsNewSession
&& HttpContext.Current.Session[key] != null)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[key];
}
throw new ArgumentNullException(key);
}
public void SetSessionValue(string key, object value)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = value;
}
}
public interface ISessionVariableProvider
{
object GetSessionValue(string key);
void SetSessionValue(string key, object value);
}
Modify your Controller expect ISessionVariableProvider as a parameter.
public class TestController: Controller
{
protected readonly ISessionVariableProvider _sessionVariableProvider;
protected InowiaControllerBase(ISessionVariableProvider sessionVariableProvider)
{
Guard.ArgumentNotNull(sessionVariableProvider, "sessionVariableProvider");
this._sessionVariableProvider = sessionVariableProvider;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
_sessionVariableProvider.SetSessionValue("foo", "bar");
var foo2 = (string)_sessionVariableProvider.GetSessionValue("foo2");
return View();
}
}
when testing create your own test implementation of ISessionVariableProvider and pass it to the controller.
I want to create a repository class to separate out my data logic from my controllers. I am using a ViewModel to represent some data that will be filled with data from different tables.
Here are some questions I have:
For a method like GetAll(), do I return an IQueryable<MyViewModel> or IQueryable<Entity>? If I return viewmodels, how do I cope with a GetAll() that pulls thousands of records?
Do I create a constructor for my custom ViewModel class that takes the Entity as a parameter to do the mapping? (I'm still unfamiliar with automapper so just need an understanding on how to do this from a design point of view)
Again, my main concern is a method like GetAll() which would pull many records. If I did a foreach loop to translate each Entity into a ViewModel seems like a lot of overhead. My thought was to put a reference inside the custom ViewModel class to the IQueryable<Entity> to access from the collection, and have the ListViewModel just have indexers or something like that which reference the collection property.
1) For a method like GetAll(), do I return an IQueryable or IQueryable? If I return viewmodels, how do I cope with a GetAll() that pulls thousands of records?
IQueryable<Entity>. The repository doesn't deal with view models. Think of the repository as something that is defined in a separate class library that doesn't reference your ASP.NET MVC application which is where your view models live. It is the ASP.NET MVC application that references this library.
2) Do I create a constructor for my custom ViewModel class that takes the Entity as a parameter to do the mapping? (I'm still unfamiliar with automapper so just need an understanding on how to do this from a design point of view)
No. Don't create constructors in your view models especially if you want your controller actions to take those view models as action parameters (think of a POST action). The reason for this is that the default model binder will no longer know how to instantiate your view model and you will have to write custom model binders.
So AutoMapper or manually map.
Example with manual mapping which is what you could start with:
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
IEnumerable<Entity> entities = Repository.GetAll();
IEnumerable<MyViewModel> model = entities.Select(x => new MyViewModel
{
Prop1 = x.Prop1,
Prop2 = x.Prop2,
...
});
return View(model);
}
And once you get sick of writing this code move to AutoMapper:
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
IEnumerable<Entity> entities = Repository.GetAll();
IEnumerable<MyViewModel> model = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<Entity>, IEnumerable<MyViewModel>>(entities);
return View(model);
}
or if you write a custom action filter that uses the OnActionExecuted event to pull the domain model that was passed to the view, map it to the view model using AutoMapper and substitute the model with the view model for the view, you could further simplify the repetitive code:
[AutoMap(typeof(IEnumerable<Entity>), typeof(IEnumerable<MyViewModel>))]
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
IEnumerable<Entity> entities = Repository.GetAll();
return View(entities);
}
Again, my main concern is a method like GetAll() which would pull many
records. If I did a foreach loop to translate each Entity into a
ViewModel seems like a lot of overhead.
Don't be concerned about that. Pulling your records will be a magnitude slower than looping and mapping to the view model.
There are many different ways to do this, but to start simply, I would return an IEnumerable<T> for your GetAll() method. However, you'll probably want to implement paging in some fashion. You might want to setup a generic repository that does your basic data access for most scenarios and returns an Enumerable. You could reserve a single method that should be reserved for more complicated queries and returns an IQueryable<T>. The basic stripped down implementation might look like below.
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
internal ObjectContext _objectContext;
internal ObjectSet<T> _objectSet;
public Repository(ObjectContext objectContext)
{
_objectContext = objectContext;
_objectSet = objectContext.CreateObjectSet<T>();
}
public IQueryable<T> GetQuery()
{
return _objectSet;
}
public IEnumerable<T> GetAll()
{
return GetQuery().ToList();
}
public IEnumerable<T> Find(Func<T, bool> where)
{
return _objectSet.Where<T>(where);
}
public T Single(Func<T, bool> where)
{
return _objectSet.SingleOrDefault<T>(where);
}
public List<T> Page<TKey>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> where, int page, int pagesize, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> orderBySelector, bool ascending)
{
return ascending
? GetQuery().Where(where).OrderBy(orderBySelector).Skip((page - 1) * pagesize).Take(pagesize).ToList()
: GetQuery().Where(where).OrderByDescending(orderBySelector).Skip((page - 1) * pagesize).Take(pagesize).ToList();
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
_objectSet.DeleteObject(entity);
}
public void Add(T entity)
{
_objectSet.AddObject(entity);
}
}
And the Interface would look like
public interface IRepository<T> where T : class
{
IQueryable<T> GetQuery();
IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
IEnumerable<T> Find(Func<T, bool> where);
T Single(Func<T, bool> where);
List<T> Page<TKey>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> where, int page, int pagesize, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> orderBySelector, bool ascending);
void Delete(T entity);
void Add(T entity);
}
The above can function as the beginning of a simple generic repository. Once you have your entities, you don't need AutoMapper, it just makes life easier as many ViewModels have the same properties as your entities. You can simply define a new ViewModel or List of ViewModels and map the properties on your own.
List<ViewModel> vm = new List<ViewModel>();
foreach (var e in entities)
{
ViewModel v = new ViewModel();
v.something = e.something;
// perform the rest
vm.Add(v);
}
*That was quite a bit to type, sorry about any typos :)
I think you may have a misunderstanding of the view model and it's purpose. You don't need to create a view model for every entity in your database, as it seems you want to do; you just create a view model for each view you want to render. Hence the term "view model"--it organizes the data in the form of a model that your view can be strongly typed to.
You wouldn't, for example, want to create a separate view model for every entity returned by a GetAll(). In a simple scenario of displaying a gridview of all records you would probably just need a single viewmodel with one property:
public class MyViewModel
{
public List<MyRecord> AllRecords {get;set;}
}
You would populate this view model in the controller
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
var viewmodel = new MyViewModel{AllRecords = GetAll()};
return View(viewModel);
}
Have a look at this blog post by Rachael Appel for a really concise discussion.
My understanding is that ASP.NET MVC only allows you to POST objects to Actions in the Controller, where the Action's arguments accept the posted object as a Concrete class.
Is there any way around this, or a good alternative?
In my case, I have an action which accepts an interface as an argument:
public ActionResult SaveAdjustment(IModel model)
{
switch (model.SubsetType)
{
// factory like usage
}
}
And for this action, I have numerous views, all strongly typed to objects that implement IModel, all which I want to be able to post to this one method.
Of course, running this give me the error:
Cannot create an instance of an interface
Is there a nice work around to this? Or do I need to create an Action method for each and send them over to a method like this?
MVC generally binds models when posting from Request.Form, that is collection of name=value pairs. The reason that in default implementation there's no support of binding interfaces or abstract classes is obvious - mvc cannot determine which concrete class to create from name=value pairs. If you got hidden field on client side, or any other parameter anywhere by which you are able to determine which type of concrete class to create, you can simply create custom model binder. I believe you can override DefaultModelBinder's CreateModel method and reuse all other built in binding functionality
public class IModelModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, System.Type modelType)
{
//Create and return concrete instance
}
}
And model binder registration in global.asax
ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(IModel?), new IModelModelBinder());
Actually, controllers and actions in mvc are meant to be thin, and some kind of service layer should be thick. As action logic you are trying to implement may get complicated soon, I would recommend moving it into separate service.
Although I mentioned this as a possible solution in my original question, its the solution I have gone with in the end and I actually quite like it now. This way I didn't need to touch the model default binding implementation and I think this approach is a more readable/understandable approach than what I was originally asking for.
In case its not clear why I wanted to go for this approach, I have added an example of how I can use this for its OO benifits.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult SaveModelA(ModelA model)
{
return SaveModel(model);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult SaveModelB(ModelB model)
{
return SaveModel(model);
}
private ActionResult SaveModel(IModel model)
{
IExampleService exampleService;
IRequirements requirements;
switch (model.SubsetType)
{
case SubsetType.ModelA:
myService = new ModelAService();
requirements = new ModelARequirements
{
ModelASpecificProperty = "example"
};
break;
case SubsetType.ModelB:
myService = new ModelBService();
requirements = new ModelBRequirements
{
ModelBSpecificProperty1 = "example",
ModelBSpecificProperty2 = "example2",
ModelBSpecificProperty3 = "example3"
};
break;
default:
throw new InvalidEnumArgumentException();
}
var serviceResonse = exampleService.ExecuteExample(model, requirements);
return RedirectToAction("Index", new
{
ExampleData = serviceResponse.ExampleDate
});
}
In case it isn't clear in the code:
ModelA : IModel
ModelB : IModel
ModelARequirements : IModelRequirements
ModelBRequirements : IModelRequirements
ModelAService : IExampleService
ModelBService : IExampleService
// and IModel defines a property SubsetType SubsetType { get; }