Hi i am started working on umbraco CMS can anybody tell me how to display contents from model to controller and return data to respective view, want to do something like this :-
ContactViewModel.cs
public int id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string address { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string phone { get; set; }
ContactController.cs
var result = new ContactViewModel()
{
id = 1,
address = "ghivto",
Email = "nimesh#gmail.com",
Name = "Nimesh khatri",
phone = "9898989898"
};
return View("contactsDemo",result);
how do i list above data to particular view..? i had already tried "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDQwu_DzYyc" but still i didn't get...can anyone elaborate it..thanks in advance..
SurfaceController exposes a controller like you would use in standard MVC and also gives access to the Umbraco helpers.
public MyController : SurfaceController {
[ChildActionOnly]
public PartialViewResult MyAction(SomeObject data)
{
var result = new ContactViewModel()
{
id = 1,
address = "ghivto",
Email = "nimesh#gmail.com",
Name = "Nimesh khatri",
phone = "9898989898"
};
return View("~/Views/PartialViews/contactsDemo.cshtml",result);
}
}
You can access this data from a Template's razor view or a Macro partial by using:
#Html.Action("MyAction","MyController", new { data = new { Test = "I am data" } })
Note: The data passing can be anything, from a single string to full object which binds to variables at the action.
As with MVC there a few ways to access a partial view file. The above example has an "absolute" path, which you could also match your view folder structure to the name of the controller and the view name to the action name. (MyAction.cshtml).
If you want to do that in Umbraco, and still have access to the Umbraco tempting system etc, you need to use a SurfaceController. This is a controller that inherits all of the useful Umbraco Stuff.
Basically, you'd create your ViewModel, and then a Surface Controller to handle all the actions (Render, Process etc). You'd then call that Surface Controller on your Umbraco View for the Contact Page (or whichever page you want this to show on).
It looks like the video you linked to already covers how to do this, but you can find an example that's pretty similar to your example here: http://creativewebspecialist.co.uk/2013/07/22/umbraco-mvc-what-on-earth-is-a-surface-controller/
Related
I have read this link: https://www.future-processing.pl/blog/view-code-reuse-techniques-in-asp-net-mvc/
I can not use any of those helper ways...
I have to show on multiple mvc sites this string:
1612-1
That is an inquiry number: 16 is the day of month, 12 the month of year and 1 is the database id. I am sure that will not be the final impl but for now we take it as given.
public class MyViewModel
{
public string City { get; set; }
public string PostalCode { get; set; }
public List<string> ActionItemDescriptions { get; set; }
public string InquiryNumber { get; set; }
}
Where would you create the InquiryNumber?
If I put it inside the razor view I cant reuse it.
Seems business logic to me , so it belongs in the business layer.
Then, from within your controller you:
call the business component which returns the inquiry number
store the number in your view model
pass the view model to the view.
One way you could get an inquiry number, without using a helper, is this:
In a controller, have the following action method:
public ActionResult GetInquiryNumber()
{
// TODO : The code to get the inquiry number.
return Content("1612-1");
}
You can then call that method in any view you like, using the following:
#{ Html.RenderAction("GetInquiryNumber", "Home"); }
Obviously you will need to come up with your own method, and controller, names.
This isn't the ideal way of passing data to a view (using a viewmodel is preferable), but the above approach is an option to you.
I have a class which looks like this:
public class ApplicationFormModel
{
protected ApplicationFormModel()
{
CurrentStep = ApplicationSteps.PersonalInfo;
PersonalInfoStep = new PersonalInfo();
}
public PersonalInfo PersonalInfoStep { get; set; }
public IEducationalBackground EducationalBackgroundStep { get; set; }
public IAboutYou AboutYouStep { get; set; }
public IOther OtherStep { get; set; }
}
where IEducationalBackground, IAboutYou, and IOther are interfaces. I do not use this class directly, but I use derived classes of this one which upon instantiation create the proper instances of EducationalBackgroundStep, AboutYouStep, and OtherStep.
In my view, I am using Razor Helpers such as
#Html.TextBoxFor(model => (model.EducationalBackgroundStep as ApplicationFormModels.EducationalBackgroundAA).University, new {#class = "form-control", type = "text", autocomplete = "off"})
The field 'University', for example, is NOT part of the Interface and I therefore need the cast to access it. Everything is fine for properties of the interface itself, but those which I need to cast for do not end up having the correct ID and Name properties.
For example, instead of EducationalBackgroundStep_University as ID, I only get University. This causes the form to not include this value when submitting it.
I did not have this issue before when I used a base class instead of an interface, but then I had to include the EducationalBackgroundStep, AboutYouStep, and OtherStep in each derived class (and have it then of the correct derived type), but that is what I wanted to avoid.
Is there any way around this? Thank you very much!
The issue with the ID generation is because you are using casting (x as y) and the TextBoxFor expression handler can't determine what the original model property was (more to the point, it doesn't make sense to use the original model property as you're not using it any more, you're using the cast property)
Example fiddle: https://dotnetfiddle.net/jQOSZA
public class c1
{
public c2 c2 { get; set; }
}
public class c2
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public ActionResult View(string page, bool pre = false)
{
var model = new c1 { c2 = new c2 { Name = "xx" } };
return View(model);
}
View
#model HomeController.c1
#Html.TextBoxFor(x=>Model.c2.Name)
#Html.TextBoxFor(x=>(Model.c2 as HomeController.c2).Name)
The first textboxfor has ID c2_Name while the second has just Name
You have two options:
1) use concrete classes rather than interfaces for your viewmodel
2) don't use TextBoxFor and instead use TextBox and specify the ID manually (but then you'll lose refactoring)
#Html.TextBox("c2_Name", (Model.c2 as HomeController.c2).Name)
This will give you the ID you're expecting, but as #StephenMuecke rightly points out, this might not bind correctly when you do the POST - so you may still be stuck... but at least it answers the question.
#freedomn-m explained to me why my code wouldn't work and he put me on the right track to find a solution, so he gets the accepted answer.
The workaround I used is the following - so I now have the following classes:
public class ApplicationFormViewModel {
public PersonalInfo PersonalInfoStep { get; set; }
// constructors which take the other classes and
// initialize these fields in an appropriate manner
public IEducationalBackground EducationalBackgroundStep { get; set; }
public IAboutYou AboutYouStep { get; set; }
public IOther OtherStep { get; set; }
}
// in our case, XX can be one of 3 values, so we have 3 classes
public class ApplicationFormXX {
public PersonalInfo PersonalInfoStep { get; set; }
// constructor which take the ApplicationFormViewModel and
// initialize these fields in an appropriate manner
public EducationalBackgroundXX EducationalBackgroundStep { get; set; }
public AboutYouXX AboutYouStep { get; set; }
public OtherXX OtherStep { get; set; }
}
To the main View I send the ApplicationFormViewModel and for each of the fields, I call a separate Partial View.
The Partial views render the common fields which are present in the Interfaces and then, depending on the type of the object held by the interface, it calls a different partial view which accepts the correct Model.
Example:
In the main View I have (NOTE: The actions return a partial view):
#model Applications.Models.ApplicationFormModels.ApplicationFormViewModel
// CODE, CODE, CODE
#Html.Action("RenderEducationalBackgroundStep", "ApplicationFormsLogic", routeValues: new {model = Model})
In the Partial View of for the EducationalBackgroundStep, I have:
#model ApplicationFormModels.ApplicationFormViewModel
// CODE, CODE, CODE
#{
var educationalBackgroundType = Model.EducationalBackgroundStep.GetType();
if (educationalBackgroundType == typeof(EducationalBackgroundXX))
{
<text>#Html.Partial("~\\Views\\Partials\\ApplicationForm\\Partials\\ApplicationSteps\\EducationalBackground\\_EducationalBackgroundXX.cshtml", new ApplicationFormModels.ApplicationFormModelXX { EducationalBackgroundStep = Model.EducationalBackgroundStep as EducationalBackgroundXX })</text>
}
// OTHER ELSE IF CASES
}
And then, the _EducationalBackgroundXX.cshtml partial view expects a model like this:
#model ApplicationFormModels.ApplicationFormModelXX
This way, no casting is required and everything works fine with the ModelBinder. Again, thank you #freedomn-m for setting me on the right track.
NOTE: In practice I need more fields than the ones presented here (for navigation and some custom logic), so actually all of these classes inherit an abstract base class (this makes it redundant to have the PersonalInfoStep declared in each of the classes, for example, because it can be inherited from the abstract base class). But for the intents and purposes of this method, what's present here suffices.
I have one view in my ASP.net MVC 2.0 project, I want to list the list of employee that I create method GetProfileCustomer() in CustomerModels and GetTransaction() in TransactionModels.
How can I import two different of models in a single view?
I'm fairly new to MVC as well, and I've struggled with the similar issues if I understand the question correctly.
I've found that you get much cleaner controller code if you design your ViewModels to be as close as possible to the data that the view is using. Your ViewModels can contain lists of other things including other model objects. Something like:
public class TransactionViewModel
{
public string dataelement1 { get; set; }
public int dataelement2 { get; set; }
//and so on...
//The Lists
public IList<Employee> EmpList { get; set; }
public IList<OtherModel> SomethingElse { get; set; }
//and so on...
}
In your controller, you construct and initialize your ViewModel
something like...
TransactionViewModel TVM = new TransactionViewModel();
//assign basic attributes here..
//make a list
TVM.Emplist = (from blah in context select blah).ToList();
//send it to the view
return View(TVM);
Hope this helps and happy to hear any feedback...
I just wondered how people were approaching this situation. It's something that seems like a weak point in my usage of MVC with ORMs (NHibernate in this case)...
Say you have a fine-grained and complicated entity in your model. You will likely have an admin page to manage objects of this type. If the entity is complicated, it is unlikely that you will be modifying the whole entity in one form. You still need to pass the relevant properties to the view, and incorporate changes to those properties in the model when the view returns them.
What does anyone do in this situation?
Create a view model which is (or contains) a subset of the entities properties. Pass this to and from the view. In 'edit' action method in controller, get the object from repository, go though all the properies in the ViewModel and apply them to the Model object (model.a = viewmodel.a, modelb = viewmodel.b). This seems the obvious sensible route, but generates a lot of tedious plumbing code. Also this complicates validation a bit.
Something else?
I've looked briefly at automapper - but this doesn't seem to fit the bill exactly, maybe I'm wrong?
Thanks.
This sounds like the perfect scenario for automapper. You create a view model class which contains a subset of the fields or your real model, and you let AutoMapper take care extraccting values from the domain model object into your view model object. What issues are you having with this approach?
Consider this example:
Here is your domain model and your view model
public class Person
{
public string FirstName
{ get; set; }
public string LastName
{ get; set; }
public string HomeNumber
{ get; set; }
public string Address1
{ get; set; }
public string Address2
{ get; set; }
}
public class PersonViewModel
{
public string FirstName
{ get; set; }
public string LastName
{ get; set; }
public string HomeNumber
{ get; set; }
}
Here is your mapping, you have to create a mapping in both directions from dm->vm and vm->dm.
From what I've seen when using Automapper is that if you map from object A to B and B has a property which A doesn't have, it will be reset. So when I create the map I direct it to ignore those missing properties. I'm not a Automapper expert so I may be using it wrong.
Mapping
Mapper.CreateMap<Person, PersonViewModel>();
// Automapper will reset values in dest which don't exist in source, so be sure to ignore them!
Mapper.CreateMap<PersonViewModel, Person>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.HomeNumber, opt => opt.Ignore());
Finally usage:
Person p = new Person()
{
FirstName = "First",
LastName = "Last",
Address1 = "add 1",
Address2 = "add 2"
};
PersonViewModel pvm = Mapper.Map<Person, PersonViewModel>(p);
// Map to a new person
Person p2 = Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, Person>(pvm);
// Map to the existing person just to update it
Person p3 = new Person()
{
HomeNumber = "numberHere"
};
// This will update p3
Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, Person>(pvm, p3);
Because of the exclusion, this is obviously less than ideal, but much better than manually doing the whole thing.
Have your view model map one-to-one with your domain model.
Specify Model as argument for the routeValues as below. This means your view model will be initialized with the values from the domain model. Only the sub set of fields in the form will be overwritten in the resulting personViewData.
Update View:
#model ViewModel.PersonView
#using (Html.BeginForm("Update", "Profile", Model, FormMethod.Post))
{
...Put your sub set of the PersonView fields here
}
ProfileController:
public ActionResult Update(string userName)
{
Person person = _unitOfWork.Person.Get().Where(p => p.UserName == userName).FirstOrDefault();
PersonView personView = new PersonView();
Mapper.Map(person, personView);
return View(personView);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(PersonView personViewData)
{
Person person = _unitOfWork.Person.Get().Where(p => p.UserName == personViewData.UserName).FirstOrDefault();
Mapper.Map(personViewData, person);
_unitOfWork.Person.Update(person);
_unitOfWork.Save();
return Json(new { saved = true, status = "" });
}
Why don't you use TryUpdateModel with the form collection.
If your view is editing a person
public class Person
{
public string ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}
And your view is only editing first name and last name, you can do this:
public ActionResult Action(FormCollection form)
{
Person personToUpdate = Repository.GetPerson(form["ID"]);
TryUpdateModel<Person>(personToUpdate, form);
Repository.Update(personToUpdate)
return View();
}
That will only update Person with the items that a part of the form collection. If you don't want a field updated, don't submit it with the form.
What if you have full model but each page uses and updates only the required part? Then you update the business model using complete view data at the last page.
I use a similar approach to yours (in my case Entity Framework) with Entity -> ViewModel -> View but only on views with "complex" entities that have either 1:M or M:M relationships. In most cases I took the low road and went for Entity->View when I have a simple entity.
My ViewModel is defined as Entity+supporting properties: SelectList or MultiSelectList and either a string or List<string>. I'll also use a ViewModel for instances where I have properties I need for the view but may not necessarily need in the entity (database).
Http Get controller methods are straightforward ActionResults with return View(repository.FetchNewViewModel()) for Create or repository.FetchModelById(id) for Edit. In both instances I'm initializing my entities before passing them to the view.
Create([Bind(Exclude = "Entity.EntityId")] ViewModel model) and Edit(ViewModel model) are the Http Post controller methods of Create and Edit. My Edit view has a hidden input field for EntityId to pass it back and forth.
By the time the Http Post method has the viewmodel, I lose all Entity.Relation and ViewModel.(Multi)SelectList values. I have to rebuild the object if I want my view to display properly:
`
try
{
var tags = model.TagIds; // List<string> or <int> depending on your Id type
if (model.TagsList == null) // It will be
{
model.TagsList = _repository.FetchSelectedTags(tags); // Build a new SelectList
}
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View(model);
}
_repository.Add(model.Article, tags); // or Save() for Edit
}
catch
{
return View(model); // Generally means something screwed in the repository class
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
`
There is maybe 30% of my entity base using a ViewModel so I definitely only use it as needed. If you have complex views and model data in most instances you can probably break it down to smaller views.
Right now i´m working on a large project using S#arp Architecture and im also using the approach:
Model -> ViewModel -> Model
I use the ViewModel for the Binding part and Validations, the other approach is to use the Model Directly (with tryUpdateModel / UpdateModel which we used during the prototype develop) but for complex scenarios we end up handling special situation like SelectLists/Checkbox/Projections/HMAC Validations in a little ViewModel anyway and using a lot of Request.Form["key"] =( , the other drawback is handling the errors situations where you want to repopulate the form with the user input, i found it a little more complicated using the Model directly (using a ViewModel we take a lot of advantage of ModelState attempted value, saving us a couple of trips to the DB, anyone who have faced this scenario will know what i mean).
This approach is a bit time consuming, just like you said, you end up matching properties, but in my opinion is the way to go for complex forms.
It worth mentioning that we just use ViewModels for the Create/Edit scenarios, for almost everything else we use directly the model.
I have not use autommapers so far, but definitely i ll give it a try.
Does it make sense create an object that contains only those properties that the user will input on the webpage, use that for binding in the controller, and then map to the full Entity Object? Or should you just use the entity object, and use Include and Exclude to make restrictions on what gets bound on input?
I have come to like the idea of using interfaces to segregate which properties should be included when the object is updated.
For example:
To create and update an person object:
interface ICreatePerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
string Sex { get; set; }
int Age { get; set; }
}
interface IUpdatePerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
class Person : ICreatePerson, IUpdatePerson
{
public int Id { get; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Sex { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
Then, when binding model, just use the appropriate interface as the type and it will only update the name property.
Here is an example controller method:
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection)
{
// Get orig person from db
var person = this.personService.Get(id);
try
{
// Update person from web form
UpdateModel<IUpdatePerson>(person);
// Save person to db
this.personService.Update(person);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
ModelState.AddModelErrors((person.GetRuleViolations());
return View(person);
}
}
See this article (and the comments) for a very good discussion of the options.
I recommend using a separate presentation model type in most cases. Aside from the issue of binding (which is important, but there are other ways around this issue), I think that there are other reasons why using presentation model types is a good idea:
Presentation Models allow "view-first" development. Create a view and a presentation model at the same time. Get your user representative to give you feedback on the view. Iterate until you're both happy. Finally, solve the problem of mapping this back to the "real" model.
Presentation Models remove dependencies that the "real" model might have, allowing easier unit testing of controllers.
Presentation Models will have the same "shape" as the view itself. So you don't have to write code in the view to deal with navigating into "detail objects" and the like.
Some models cannot be used in an action result. For example, an object graph which contains cycles cannot be serialized to JSON.