Is there any good reasons to create ViewModel that copy`s Model with addition of validation logic?
Why not simply extend current model with validation logic?
If you will create ViewModel copy, you need to
Create class with corresponding fields (which is not big problem if you have few models to validate, but what if you have many..)
Set automapper, wich can be slow, and adds additional logic to your solution (or do it by hand, which is probably, bad idea)
Support Model changes for ViewModel
These problems dissapear if you simply extend your basic Model. So why it is so popular to create ViewModel layer?
You can have two views with different validation logic for the same model.
the classic example is a sign up form, with a single page form vs a multi page wizard.
In both cases the model is the same, but in the wizard view its legitimate to submit the model half filled in, while the single page version should have all the fields validated.
Taking this possibility further leads to the one viewmodel per view methodology. Where you always make a viewmodel for a view as a matter of course because you expect to need the flexibility that it offers as a general thing.
Additionally, its pretty rare that view exactly matches a model. You usually require more than one model plus some odd extra bits. eg user model for the 'logged in as' header, list of models to display plus pagination info.
You can avoid some of the issues you mention by using ViewModels which simply wrap models and expose their properties where extra logic isn't required
Related
I have read online that it is bad practice to use a "kitchen sink" model:
Rule #3 – The View dictates the design of the ViewModel. Only what is
required to render a View is passed in with the ViewModel.
If a Customer object has fifty properties, but one component only
shows their name, then we create a custom ViewModel type with only
those two properties.
Jimmy Bogard's subsequent explanation of how this is good, however, left me a little questioning. It'd be so easy to have my Model just contain a list of Customers, I could even use my POCO's.
So now I get to create custom little view model fragments for every page on the site? Every page that uses a Customer property would get one, but of course could not be shared since some of the information is extraneous, if one page used Age but not Name, for example. Two new mini view model classes right?
This is very time consuming, and seems like it'll lead to a million little custom view models - can someone elaborate as to the utility of this approach and why the easier approach is bad?
View model class can be used not only to transfer values, but it also defines data types (data annotations), validation rules and relations different then ones used in model. Some advantages that come to my mind right now:
There are different validation rules when you change user's password,
change his basic data or his subscription setting. It can be
complicated to define all these rules in one model class. It looks
much better and cleaner when different view models are used.
Using view model can also give you performance advantages. If you
want to display user list, you can define view model with id and name
only and use index to retrieve it from database. If you retrieved
whole objects and pass it to view, you transfer more data from
database than you need to.
You can define display, and editor templates for view models and reuse them on different pages using html helpers. It looks much worse, when you define templates for model POCOs.
If you would use your POCO objects as view models, you would essentially be showing your private objects and break the encapsulation. This in turn would make your model hard to change without altering the corresponding views.
Your data objects may contain details that are appropriate only to the data access layer. If you expose those things to the view, someone might alter those values that you did not expect to be altered and cause bugs.
Many of the same reasons as for having private members in OO languages apply to this reasoning. That being said, it's still very often broken because it's a lot of extra work to create all these "throw-away" models that only gets used once. There exists frameworks for creating these sorts of models, though the name eludes me, that can tie objects together and pick out the interesting properties only which takes away some of the drudgery from creating specific view models.
Your View Model tells the View how data should be shown. It expresses the model. I don't think its necessary to have two view models unless you have two ways to express your model. Just because you have two pages, doesn't mean you will be showing the data any different way, so I wouldn't waste time making two mini View Models when it can be in one reusable view model, Imagine if later you have a page that needs Name and Age, you would create another view model? It's absolutely silly. However, if you had two pages both showing 'Age' and it needed to be shown in a different way, then I would create another one.
With MVC3, should I design my view models such that there is one that is bound to the view (DisplayModel), and one that is posted back to the controller (EditModel)?
To clarify, I am not asking about data models vs. view models -- I know it's not good to bind my views/controllers to data/domain models.
Nor am I asking about sharing one model across two separate views, one view that is used for displaying the data, and another view that is used for editing the data.
Rather, I am asking about one view that is used for editing data, and the model that is bound to the view vs. the model that is bound to the controller action.
In other words, if this is my view:
#model MyApp.Models.CustomerModel
Should my controller action look like:
public ActionResult Index(CustomerModel model)
Or:
public ActionResult Index(CustomerEditModel model)
At one point, we were doing the latter (separate). But lately, we've started doing the former (shared).
The reason for this change was because:
With MVC3 unobtrusive validation, if I'm using DataAnnotations on my model for validation, this is needed in both models if they are separated (on the display model to map client-side validation, and on the edit model for server-side validation).
As our application matured, we realized that our display and edit models were 95% identical, with the exception of the select lists that were in our view models. We've now moved these to a shared class and are passing these in via the view now.
But I've seen some other discussions that point to having shared models for view/controller to be a bad idea, and that it violates separation of concerns.
Can someone help me understand the tradeoffs for these two approaches?
I've seen perfectly good arguments for and against, it just depends what works best for your application. There's no one size fits all approach that can be applied!
If you haven't read it Jimmy Bogard has written a very good post about how his team does MVC here, which covers this topic.
I agree with rich.okelly's answer that there's no right approach.
There are a couple of concerns I have with using one model, though.
It's going to be very to always use one model without having unneeded properties when the view needs to display a selectable list of objects. The model will need to have the list of objects as well as a property to accept the POSTed value the user chooses. These unneeded properties add a small amount of code clutter and overhead.
(One way around this is to have the model contain only selected ID and have HTML helpers to build the lists.)
Another concern is more related to security.
A common scenario is displaying information in a form that should be considered read-only.
In the case of a ViewModel and an EditModel, the EditModel will only contain properties that are expected to be POSTed, whereas the ViewModel will contain all of the properties.
For example, if a form displays a user's salary, a user will be able to POST a 'salary' and have it bound to the ViewModel's Salary property automatically by MVC.
At this point, something has to be done to ensure it doesn't end up in the database. It could be if/else logic, a Bind attribute, Automapper logic or something else, but the point is that it's a step that could be overlooked.
When considering the lifespan of an application, I like the explicitness of the EditModel over time.
These concerns don't mean that two models are good and one model is bad, but they should be considered when choosing a design.
If the properties are the same for display and edit view models I see no reason to have separate classes.
I think you'll find that it's hit or miss no matter what way you go but if you can take the path of easiest maintainability then you should do that. In my experience, having a single model is much easier to maintain, obviously, but it seems that there is always some business decision that is made that forces me to split the models. If you're in that 95% then I think you are in really good shape. Your application, from a maintainability perspective related to your models, will be easy to maintain. When a change comes along, you have one place to make that change, for the most part. The issue I always seem to run into is scaling business changes across multiple models. Copy/paste issues, or simply forgetting about some property somewhere, always seems to hurt me because of the multi-model issue.
we realized that our display and edit models were 95% identical, with the
exception of the select lists that were in our view models. We've now
moved these to a shared class and are passing these in via the view now.
Are they 95% identical in data and operations or only in data? Remember that classes encapsulate data and behavior.
If they are 95% similar in properties but have totally different operations you might benefit from splitting them in two classes. Or you might not :)
As others pointed out there is no one-size-fit-all answer and in your case it seems that one class is OK...but if you start noticing that the behavior on each of them is unrelated don't be afraid to rethink you approach.
No - one view model for both directions. Mixing it up is not only harder to follow, but one could easily inject invalid values into the page that then get automatically bound. I could overwrite your customerid (or create one) for example.
Inherit from a base view model if you must or don't rely on data annotations at all and use the fluent api on your model save.
A great link (somewhat unrelated but the auto map is nice)
edit
(sorry someone else previously posted this below I just realized)
http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/06/30/how-we-do-mvc-view-models/
Also
ASP.net MVC - One ViewModel per View or per Action?
You (IMHO) should be generally binding to your method specific VieWModel rather than a shared view model. You could get caught in a trap of missing properties, etc. but it may also work just fine for you.
Use auto mapper to go between both. Jimmy also has a nice AutoMap attribute when returning to the View. Going back the other way I would not use a CustomerModel in general as there may be fields required in there that are not coming from my say, create view. For example a customer id may be a required field and for a "create" action it won't be present. But - if you find in the most of your cases this to actually work for you, then there is no reason at all not to use it.
As an exercise in learning .NET, I'm moving some simple forms over into MVC, and have run into an issue. The form in question is a multi-part form that has option sections. For example, Section 0 is static and contains information like username, real name, email address. After that is a radio button with several options. If you click the first radio, it displays Section 1. If you choose the second, it displays Section 2, and so on.
In WebForms this was no biggy, as I just validated on postback and said if Radio1.Selected validate this, if Radio2.Selected validate that, etc. So now I've got a strongly-typed view with [Required] members, which obviously isn't going to work - I can't require members that aren't always going to be required.
With that said, is this the correct approach to the problem:
Create the members that belong in Section 0 in my strongly-typed view model class.
Create references to each partial's strongly-typed class in my view model class.
Create the partial views and then render them in the main view.
Depending on which radio button is selected, render the appropriate partial view.
Validate the model like usual...which hopefully will cascade to the partial models.
Does this make sense, or is the approach wrong?
That's a typical scenario where you need conditional validation, i.e. if some value is set then validate that some other value is required. Achieving this with static data annotations which are simple attributes baked at compile time can quickly turn into a nightmare due to their declarative nature. Well, you could always roll your own custom validation attributes but the problem with attributes is that you will have to specify property names as strings as they need to be known at compile time.
That's one of the reasons why I use FluentValidation.NET. Not only that validation rules are separate from the view models and that it integrates really nicely with ASP.NET MVC but handling scenarios like this would be very easy. You could have a sub-view model containing all the properties of the sub-section and then conditionally include it based on the value of a given property on the main view model inside its validator.
When I started using xVal for client-side validation, I was only implementing action methods which used domain model objects as a viewmodel or embedded instances of those objects in the viewmodel.
This approach works fine most of the time, but there are cases when the view needs to display and post back only a subset of the model's properties (for example when the user wants to update his password, but not the rest of his profile data).
One (ugly) workaround is to have a hidden input field on the form for each property that is not otherwise present on the form.
Apparently the best practice here is to create a custom viewmodel which only contains properties relevant to the view and populate the viewmodel via Automapper. It's much cleaner since I am only transferring the data relevant to the view, but it's far from perfect since I have to repeat the same validation attributes that are already present on the domain model object.
Ideally I'd like to specify the Domain Model object as a meta class via a MetaData attribute (this is also often referred to as "buddy class"), but that doesn't work since xVal throws when the metadata class has properties that are not present on the viewmodel.
Is there any elegant workaround to this? I've been considering hacking the xVal sourcecode, but perhaps there is some other way I have overlooked so far.
Thanks,
Adrian
Edit: With the arrival of ASP.NET MVC 2, this is not only a problem related to validation attributes anymore, but it also applies to editor and display attributes.
This is the quintessential reason why your input screens should not be tightly coupled to your model. This question actually pops up here on the MVC tag about 3-4 times a month. I'd dupe if I could find the previous question and some of the comment discussion here is interesting. ;)
The issue your having is you're trying to force two different validation contexts of a model into a single model which fails under a large amount of scenarios. The best example is signing up a new user and then having an admin edit a user field later. You need to validate a password on a user object during registration but you won't show the password field to the admin editing the user details.
The choices for getting around these are all sub-optimal. I've worked on this problem for 3 projects now and implementing the following solutions has never been clean and usually frustrating. I'm going to try and be practical and forget all the DDD/db/model/hotnessofthemonth discussions everybody else is having.
1) Multiple View Models
Having viewmodels that are almost the same violates the DRY principal but I feel the costs of this approach are really low. Usually violating DRY amps up maintenance costs but IMHO the costs for this are the lowest and don't amount to much. Hypothetically speaking you don't change how max number characters the LastName field can have very often.
2) Dynamic Metadata
There are hooks in MVC 2 for providing your own metadata for a model. With this approach you could have whatever your using to provide metadata exclude certain fields based on the current HTTPRequest and therefore Action and Controller. I've used this technique to build a database driven permissions system which goes to the DB and tells the a subclass of the DataAnnotationsMetadataProvider to exclude properties based values stored in the database.
This technique is working great atm but the only problem is validating with UpdateModel(). To solve this problem we created a SmartUpdateModel() method which also goes to the database and automatically generates the exclude string[] array so that any non-permissisable fields aren't validated. We of course cached this for performance reasons so its not bad.
Just want to reiterate that we used [ValidationAttributes] on our models and then superceeded them with new rules on runtime. The end result was that the [Required] User.LastName field wasn't validated if the user didn't have permission to access it.
3) Crazy Interface Dynamic Proxy Thing
The last technique I tried to was to use interfaces for ViewModels. The end result was I had a User object that inherited from interfaces like IAdminEdit and IUserRegistration. IAdminEdit and IUserRegistration would both contain DataAnnotation attributes that performed all the context specific validation like a Password property with the interfaces.
This required some hackery and was more an academic exercise than anything else. The problem with 2 and 3 is that UpdateModel and the DataAnnotationsAttribute provider needed to be customized to be made aware of this technique.
My biggest stumbling block was I didn't ever want to send the whole user object to the view so I ended up using dynamic proxies to create runtime instances of IAdminEdit
Now I understand this is a very xVal specific question but all of the roads to dynamic validation like this lead to customization of the internal MVC Metadata providers. Since all the metadata stuff is new nothing is that clean or simple to do at this point. The work you'd have to do to customize MVC's validation behavior isn't hard but requires some in depth knowledge of how all of the internals work.
We moved our validation attributes to the ViewModel layer. In our case, this provided a cleaner separation of concerns anyway, as we were then able to design our domain model such that it couldn't get into an invalid state in the first place. For example, Date might be required on a BillingTransaction object. So we don't want to make it Nullable. But on our ViewModel, we might need to expose Nullable such that we can catch the situation where the user didn't enter a value.
In other cases, you might have validation that is specific per page/form, and you'll want to validate based on the command the user is trying to perform, rather than set a bunch of stuff and ask the domain model, "are you valid for trying to do XYZ", where in doing "ABC" those values are valid.
If ViewModels are hypothetically being forced upon you, then I recommend that they only enforce domain-agnostic requirements. This includes things like "username is required" and "email is formatted properly".
If you duplicate validation from the domain models in the view models, then you have tightly coupled the domain to the UI. When the domain validation changes ("can only apply 2 coupon per week" becomes "can only apply 1 coupon per week"), the UI must be updated. Generally speaking, this would be awful, and detrimental to agility.
If you move the validation from the domain models to the UI, you've essentially gutted your domain and placed the responsibility of validation on the UI. A second UI would have to duplicate all the validation, and you have coupled two separate UI's together. Now if the customer wants a special interface to administrate the inventory from their iPhone, the iPhone project needs to replicate all the validation that is also found in the website UI.
This would be even more awful than validation duplication described above.
Unless you can predict the future and can rule out these possibilities, only validate domain-agnostic requirements.
I don't know how this will play for client-side validation, but if partial validation is your issue you can modify the DataAnnotationsValidationRunner discussed here to take in an IEnumerable<string> list of property names, as follows:
public static class DataAnnotationsValidationRunner
{
public static IEnumerable<ErrorInfo> GetErrors(object instance, IEnumerable<string> fieldsToValidate)
{
return from prop in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(instance).Cast<PropertyDescriptor>().Where(p => fieldsToValidate.Contains(p.Name))
from attribute in prop.Attributes.OfType<ValidationAttribute>()
where !attribute.IsValid(prop.GetValue(instance))
select new ErrorInfo(prop.Name, attribute.FormatErrorMessage(string.Empty), instance);
}
}
I'm gonna risk the downvotes and state that there is no benefit to ViewModels (in ASP.NET MVC), especially considering the overhead of creating and maintaining them. If the idea is to decouple from the domain, that is indefensible. A UI decoupled from a domain is not a UI for that domain. The UI must depend on the domain, so you're either going to have your Views/Actions coupled to the domain model, or your ViewModel management logic coupled to the domain model. The architecture argument is thus moot.
If the idea is to prevent users from hacking malicious HTTP POSTs that take advantage of ASP.NET MVC's model binding to mutate fields they shouldn't be allowed to change, then A) the domain should enforce this requirement, and B) the actions should provide whitelists of updateable properties to the model binder.
Unless you're domain is exposing something crazy like a live, in-memory object graph instead of entity copies, ViewModels are wasted effort. So to answer your question, keep domain validation in the domain model.
I have a business model called Customer which has many required properties (via DataAnnotations) and other validation rules.
I have a View which is meant to allow editing of the customer's address fields.
The problem I have is that I want a strongly-typed view but I can't get away with using the Customer type here. Since the view will only be editing address data it won't return any of the other required data the Customer object would need in order to validate.
This suggests that I should use a ViewModel. However, there are many business rules that apply to the address related properties on Customer that I would have to duplicate on the new ViewModel (address lengths, zipcodes, state formatting, etc). They need duplicated because the client-side validation (I'm using xVal) requires that information in order to function.
I feel I've reached a catch-22 scenario. DRY tells me that I should not duplicate my business rules on a ViewModel that my Model already has, but on the other hand I can't use the Model because it will never validate.
What is the best practice in this situation?
The chosen path
The solution I ultimately chose was the ViewModel path. In order to get the validation I needed to work there was simply no other practical way.
However, was was unable to eliminate some rough spots using the ViewModel brought up. I refactored some of my models to use interfaces containing the properties I knew would re-used in the ViewModels. Since the ViewModels could now use the same interfaces as the models it allowed me to do things like this:
public ActionResult Edit(AddressViewModel address)
{
if(!ModelState.IsValid)
return View();
var customer = Customer.Load(address.CustomerId);
UpdateModel<IAddress>(customer);
// more stuff ....
}
This saves me the step of using an automapper.
The answer I selected below (by Wyatt Barnett) I felt was good for most cases and I use it on other projects I have, especially useful with Linq-to-Sql.
I ran into the same issue with complex model classes not playing well with simpler views and model binding. I also happened to be using xVal. The trick I fell upon was to use Validation Buddies to cover the DRY angle for basic validation then use AutoMapper to push things back into the full-blown model classes. I can then run a second round of server-side validation to cover the more complex bits that require access to the database and such.
From a technical standpoing, your view should only talk to your ViewModel, not the model. So your viewmodel should delegate all the validation to the model. The ViewModel should be adding interaction layer stuff.
Of course this all falls apart in Silverlight, where you typically need some kind of quick validation done at the client side, so all of a sudden you're copying all your validation rules up to the ViewModel anyway. I haven't figured a way around that yet.