ASP.NET MVC Clean way to inject partial view from action - asp.net-mvc

I have an app with many widgets and their content depends on the user requesting specific route. Simply put: if widget action is requested, its content must be rendered, otherwise it's empty. Consider routes/actions like this:
~/MyApp/Index -> without model; app HTML, without any widgets
~/MyApp/Foo/{id} -> uses FooModel; if ModelState is valid, returns
Index HTML with injected partial view of Foo's widget to div#foo;
otherwise redirects to Index.
~/MyApp/Bar/{id} -> same as Foo, but different model and widget
My foo action :
public ActionResult Foo(string id) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
var response = FooService.GetData(id);
// Inject Foo widget to Index
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
I know that it is possible to use ViewBag or other means to send variables and using the condition to decide whether to render partial view or not. But... there should be a better way to do this, right?

I use MVC's Html.RenderActionResult when I want to build shared views with non-trivial binding logic (calling the database, composing complex objects, etc). The binding logic for each widget is contained in a PartialViewResult method, which is called from the *.cshtml file using Html.RenderAction().
ContentController:
public ActionResult Index(int id)
{
var indexViewModel = new IndexViewModel
{
Id = id,
Title = "My Title",
SubHeader = "Wow its 2016"
};
return View(indexViewModel);
}
public PartialViewResult PopularContent(int id)
{
var popularContentViewModel = new List<PopularContentViewModel>();
// query by id to get popular content items
return PartialView("_PopularContent", popularContentViewModel);
}
public PartialViewResult Widget2(int id)
{
return PartialView("_Widget2Partial");
}
Index.cshtml:
#model StackOverflow.RenderAction.ViewModels.IndexViewModel
<h1>#Model.Title</h1>
<h2>#Model.SubHeader</h2>
--RenderAction will call out to the specified route.
--Note the use of the Id parameter from the viewmodel.
#{Html.RenderAction("PopularContent", "Content", new {Model.Id});}

ASP.NET MVC Attribute Routing could a be a nice solution for this:
In your controller:
public class WidgetController : Controller
{
[Route("myapp/foowidget", Name = "FooWidget")]
public ActionResult FooWidget()
{
//create any model and return any view or partial or redirect
}
[Route("myapp/boowidget/{id:int}", Name = "BooWidget")]
public ActionResult BooWidget(int id)
{
//create any model and return any view or partial or redirect
}
}
And then in a View, you can call the Route by name:
#Url.RouteUrl("FooWidget")
or
#Url.RouteUrl("BooWidget")
or
#Html.RenderPartial("FooWidget")
#Url.RouteUrl("BooWidget") will render or concatenate the id that is in current url, if url is /myapp/something/id, because of your Route attribute definition: "myapp/boowidget/{id:int}". In fact #Url.RouteUrl("BooWidget") might extract the id from any current url of the format /controllerName/action/id, though you will have to test for sure.
And notice how you can have a separation of concerns with your WidgetController and your url Routes are not dependent on that controller's name in any way. That is a nice feature of Attribute Routing, you can declare custom routes as well as organize your controllers and break from nameing convention dependency of a controllerName being part of the url controllerName/action a user sees in their browser.
In regards to Html.RenderPartial, I am not sure if RenderPartial "connects" or will be able to route to your RouteName like "FooWidget". If it does great.
If not your solution is this:
public class WidgetController : Controller
{
public ActionResult FooWidget()
{
//model, you choose, return a partial
}
public ActionResult RedirectUser()
{
//do a redirect
}
public ActionResult BooWidget()
{
//any model, any partial
}
public ActionResult BooWidget(int id)
{
//any model, any partial
}
}
Each method in your controller is single purpose, has a distinct signature and does one thing, no conditions to pass in and no decisions required.

Related

Difference between View Data,View Bag and Temp Data in mvc [duplicate]

Could any body explain, when to use
TempData
ViewBag
ViewData
I have a requirement, where I need to set a value in a controller one, that controller will redirect to Controller Two and Controller Two will render the View.
I have tried to use ViewBag, the value gets lost by the time I reach Controller Two.
Can I know when to use and advantages or disadvantages?
Thanks
1)TempData
Allows you to store data that will survive for a redirect. Internally it uses the Session as backing store, after the redirect is made the data is automatically evicted. The pattern is the following:
public ActionResult Foo()
{
// store something into the tempdata that will be available during a single redirect
TempData["foo"] = "bar";
// you should always redirect if you store something into TempData to
// a controller action that will consume this data
return RedirectToAction("bar");
}
public ActionResult Bar()
{
var foo = TempData["foo"];
...
}
2)ViewBag, ViewData
Allows you to store data in a controller action that will be used in the corresponding view. This assumes that the action returns a view and doesn't redirect. Lives only during the current request.
The pattern is the following:
public ActionResult Foo()
{
ViewBag.Foo = "bar";
return View();
}
and in the view:
#ViewBag.Foo
or with ViewData:
public ActionResult Foo()
{
ViewData["Foo"] = "bar";
return View();
}
and in the view:
#ViewData["Foo"]
ViewBag is just a dynamic wrapper around ViewData and exists only in ASP.NET MVC 3.
This being said, none of those two constructs should ever be used. You should use view models and strongly typed views. So the correct pattern is the following:
View model:
public class MyViewModel
{
public string Foo { get; set; }
}
Action:
public Action Foo()
{
var model = new MyViewModel { Foo = "bar" };
return View(model);
}
Strongly typed view:
#model MyViewModel
#Model.Foo
After this brief introduction let's answer your question:
My requirement is I want to set a value in a controller one, that
controller will redirect to ControllerTwo and Controller2 will render
the View.
public class OneController: Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
TempData["foo"] = "bar";
return RedirectToAction("index", "two");
}
}
public class TwoController: Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var model = new MyViewModel
{
Foo = TempData["foo"] as string
};
return View(model);
}
}
and the corresponding view (~/Views/Two/Index.cshtml):
#model MyViewModel
#Html.DisplayFor(x => x.Foo)
There are drawbacks of using TempData as well: if the user hits F5 on the target page the data will be lost.
Personally I don't use TempData neither. It's because internally it uses Session and I disable session in my applications. I prefer a more RESTful way to achieve this. Which is: in the first controller action that performs the redirect store the object in your data store and user the generated unique id when redirecting. Then on the target action use this id to fetch back the initially stored object:
public class OneController: Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var id = Repository.SaveData("foo");
return RedirectToAction("index", "two", new { id = id });
}
}
public class TwoController: Controller
{
public ActionResult Index(string id)
{
var model = new MyViewModel
{
Foo = Repository.GetData(id)
};
return View(model);
}
}
The view stays the same.
TempData
Basically it's like a DataReader, once read, data will be lost.
Check this Video
Example
public class HomeController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
ViewBag.Message = "Welcome to ASP.NET MVC!";
TempData["T"] = "T";
return RedirectToAction("About");
}
public ActionResult About()
{
return RedirectToAction("Test1");
}
public ActionResult Test1()
{
String str = TempData["T"]; //Output - T
return View();
}
}
If you pay attention to the above code, RedirectToAction has no impact over the TempData until TempData is read. So, once TempData is read, values will be lost.
How can i keep the TempData after reading?
Check the output in Action Method Test 1 and Test 2
public class HomeController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
ViewBag.Message = "Welcome to ASP.NET MVC!";
TempData["T"] = "T";
return RedirectToAction("About");
}
public ActionResult About()
{
return RedirectToAction("Test1");
}
public ActionResult Test1()
{
string Str = Convert.ToString(TempData["T"]);
TempData.Keep(); // Keep TempData
return RedirectToAction("Test2");
}
public ActionResult Test2()
{
string Str = Convert.ToString(TempData["T"]); //OutPut - T
return View();
}
}
If you pay attention to the above code, data is not lost after RedirectToAction as well as after Reading the Data and the reason is, We are using TempData.Keep(). is that
In this way you can make it persist as long as you wish in other controllers also.
ViewBag/ViewData
The Data will persist to the corresponding View
ViewBag, ViewData, TempData and View State in MVC
http://royalarun.blogspot.in/2013/08/viewbag-viewdata-tempdata-and-view.html
ASP.NET MVC offers us three options ViewData, VieBag and TempData for passing data from controller to view and in next request. ViewData and ViewBag are almost similar and TempData performs additional responsibility.
Similarities between ViewBag & ViewData :
Helps to maintain data when you move from controller to view. Used to
pass data from controller to corresponding view. Short life means
value becomes null when redirection occurs. This is because their goal
is to provide a way to communicate between controllers and views. It’s
a communication mechanism within the server call.
Difference between ViewBag & ViewData:
ViewData is a dictionary of objects that is derived from
ViewDataDictionary class and accessible using strings as keys. ViewBag
is a dynamic property that takes advantage of the new dynamic features
in C# 4.0. ViewData requires typecasting for complex data type and
check for null values to avoid error. ViewBag doesn’t require
typecasting for complex data type.
ViewBag & ViewData Example:
public ActionResult Index()
{
ViewBag.Name = "Arun Prakash";
return View();
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
ViewData["Name"] = "Arun Prakash";
return View();
}
In View, we call like below:
#ViewBag.Name
#ViewData["Name"]
TempData:
Helps to maintain data when you move from one controller to other
controller or from one action to other action. In other words when you
redirect, “Tempdata” helps to maintain data between those redirects.
It internally uses session variables. TempData is meant to be a very
short-lived instance, and you should only use it during the current
and the subsequent requests only
The only scenario where using TempData will reliably work is when you are redirecting. This is because a redirect kills the current request (and sends HTTP status code 302 Object Moved to the client), then creates a new request on the server to serve the redirected view.
It requires typecasting for complex data type and check for null values to avoid error.
public ActionResult Index()
{
var model = new Review()
{
Body = "Start",
Rating=5
};
TempData["ModelName"] = model;
return RedirectToAction("About");
}
public ActionResult About()
{
var model= TempData["ModelName"];
return View(model);
}
void Keep()
Calling this method with in the current action ensures that all the items in TempData are not removed at the end of the current request.
#model MyProject.Models.EmpModel;
#{
Layout = "~/Views/Shared/_Layout.cshtml";
ViewBag.Title = "About";
var tempDataEmployeet = TempData["emp"] as Employee; //need typcasting
TempData.Keep(); // retains all strings values
}
void Keep(string key)
Calling this method with in the current action ensures that specific item in TempData is not removed at the end of the current request.
#model MyProject.Models.EmpModel;
#{
Layout = "~/Views/Shared/_Layout.cshtml";
ViewBag.Title = "About";
var tempDataEmployeet = TempData["emp"] as Employee; //need typcasting
TempData.Keep("emp"); // retains only "emp" string values
}
TempData
will be always available until first read, once you read it its not available any more can be useful to pass quick message also to view that will be gone after first read.
ViewBag
Its more useful when passing quickly piece of data to the view, normally you should pass all data to the view through model , but there is cases when you model coming direct from class that is map into database like entity framework
in that case you don't what to change you model to pass a new piece of data, you can stick that into the viewbag
ViewData is just indexed version of ViewBag and was used before MVC3
Also the scope is different between viewbag and temptdata. viewbag is based on first view (not shared between action methods) but temptdata can be shared between an action method and just one another.

Difference between Private methods and Actions decorated with NonAction in Asp.Net MVC

in Asp.Net MVC if I decorate an action method with attribute NonAction then it wont be allowed to be called by the user visiting the site.
same happens when I make it private
So whats the difference between the two and is there a special purpose for which NonAction attribute has been made?
For example whats the difference between
[NonAction]
public ActionResult SomeAction(){}
And
private ActionResult SomeAction(){}
in the context of asp.net MVC of course I know one is public and the other one is private
That's the only difference. The attribute is used when you want a method that has a signature that would make it an action, but that you don't want to be an action.
An example for a use for that is a method that action methods call to produce the ActionResult for them:
[NonAction]
public JsonResult JsonInfo(string id, string value) {
return Json(new { id = id, value = value });
}
public JsonResult GetBusInfo() {
return JsonInfo("4", "Bus");
}
public JsonResult GetCarInfo() {
return JsonInfo("8", "Car");
}
The reason to make it public instead of private would be so that actions in other controllers could also use it.
Both works same with action method,you can use them seperately or together.
[NonAction]
private ActionResult Details(int? id)
{
if (id == null)
{
return new HttpStatusCodeResult(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
}
FEED_TBL fEED_TBL = db.FEED_TBL.Find(id);
if (fEED_TBL == null)
{
return HttpNotFound();
}
return View(fEED_TBL);
}
If declare it like the above code then when we will try to go to details action method it will not go to it.Rather it will show the error.
{{ HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.}}
This shows that our detail link on view does found any reference to details action method and our controller to.

ASP.NET MVC ViewModel update

I have a details page which lets me edit the information associated with a particular item.
public ActionResult Details(int id)
{
Call call = db.Calls.Find(id);
return View(new CallFormViewModel(call));
}
I use a view model --
public class CallFormViewModel
{
public Call Call { get; private set; }
public CallFormViewModel()
{
Call = new Call();
}
public CallFormViewModel(Call call)
{
Call = call;
}
}
When I submit, I want to only allow certain properties of the 'call' object to be updated. My Post handling method looks like this -
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Details(CallFormViewModel callForm)
{
(some code removed for clarity)
UpdateModel(callForm.Call ,new string[] {
"Contact",
"Summary",
"Description",
}
}
The problem is that callForm has already been updated with all of the input from the form submit before I even call UpdateModel.
How can I change this and use UpdateModel to selectively update fields?
Thanks
Edit:
I think i've been looking at this the wrong way. What I should be doing is this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Details(int id, CallFormViewModel callForm)
{
var call = db.Calls.Find(id);
(some code removed for clarity)
UpdateModel(call, "Call", new string[] {
"Contact",
"Summary",
"Description",
}
}
This way it's taking the incomplete data [and only the fields i want] and applying it to the actual model. I had been confusing the callForm.Call with the actual model object, when infact it's only a representation of it.
Have to wait till I get to work to test this theory.
When you write your ViewModel in the Action parameters, The Model Binder Bind the ViewModel properties to the "incoming" data. This should work:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Details()
{
CallFormViewModel callForm = new CallFormViewModel();
UpdateModel(callForm.Call ,new string[] {
"Contact",
"Summary",
"Description",
}
}
Update:
The Bind attribute option:
[Bind(Include = "Contact,Summary,Description")]
public class CallFormViewModel
{
// As before...
}
You don't need to call UpdateModel because you will get an updated model passed as the parameter to your method. If you'd prefer to use UpdateModel, you should remove the parameter from the action method.
To then update just the fields you are interested in, you should either:
Have the method take a different view model that only includes the fields that should be updated.
Change the form so that only the fields you want updated are in text boxes (or other updatable controls) created by the HTML.TextBoxFor() methods.

ASP.NET MVC ViewModel with SelectList(s) best practice

I noticed that in the NerdDinner application that if the ModelState is invalid for a dinner, it merely returns the view for the model:
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
...
return RedirectToAction("Details", new { id=dinner.DinnerID });
}
return View(dinner);
However, in my application the model (a view model in this situation) contains multiple SelectLists. These lists are not instantiated at this point because this view model was just populated from the form submission. What is the recommended way to repopulate this SelectLists before sending them back to the user?
This is what I want my controller to do:
public ActionResult Save(MyModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
businessClass.Save(model);
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
// This won't work because model has uninstantiated SelectLists
return View("MyView", model);
}
I don't want to send the model to my business logic if the ModelState is invalid, but it doesn't seem to make sense to put SelectList population code in my controller. Should I create a public method in my business logic solely for doing this kind of stuff on my view model(s)?
Personally I like to keep it simple:-
[HttpGet]
public Edit(int id) {
EditForm form = new EditForm();
// Populate from the db or whatever...
PopulateEditPageSelectLists(form);
return View(form);
}
[HttpPost]
public Edit(EditForm form) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
// Do stuff and redirect...
}
PopulateEditPageSelectLists(form);
return View(form);
}
public void PopulateEditPageSelectLists(form) {
// Get lookup data from the db or whatever.
}
If the logic to populate the select lists is all kinds crazy it might be worthwhile moving to a separate class or whatever it but as a first step this is the best place to start.
You dont say how much reusability would you like. But personally, i like things "clear" (dont invading controller) and reausable as possible, and that in MVC means - filters.
Look at this :
public class SupplyLanguagesAttribute : System.Web.Mvc.ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(System.Web.Mvc.ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
filterContext.Controller.ViewData["languagesList"] =
someService.LoadLanguagesAsDictionary();
base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext);
}
}
then you just use it with every action method where you "might" need languages :
[SupplyLanguages]
public ActionResult DoSomething()
{
...
}
And then in view, you can use the data directly for DropDownList from ViewData, or you can even "wrap" this too (and avoid "magic strings" in views), with custom reusable DropDown :
public static MvcHtmlString LanguageDropDown(this HtmlHelper html, string name, object selectValue, bool defaultOption = false)
{
var languages = html.ViewData["languagesList"] as IDictionary<string,string>;
if (languages == null || languages.Count() == 0)
throw new ArgumentNullException("LanguageDropDown cannot operate without list of languages loaded in ViewData. Use SupplyLanguages filter.");
var list = new SelectList(languages, "Key", "Value", selectValue);
return SelectExtensions.DropDownList(html, name, list);
}
My controllers populate the SelectLists on my Model if the ModelState is not valid.
Following Separation of Concerns, your business classes shouldn't know anything about the view model at all. If your view needs a list of employees your controller gets a list of employees from your business layer and creates the SelectList that your view needs.
Example
public ActionResult Save(MyModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
businessClass.Save(model);
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
model.PossibleEmployees
= _employeeRepository.All().Select(e =>
new SelectListItem{Text=e.Name,
Value=e.Id});
return View("MyView", model);
}
Update
If your select list population code is determining WHICH options to present I think you probably should move that to a service in your business layer. If reusability is the big concern, rouen's answer looks like it has the most possibility for reuse.
I use to fill lists even when the model is invalid. One other possible solution is to have an action returning the json information and build the select via ajax. SOmetimes I've also resorted to static properties / cached collections. I guess it's always depending on the particular case.
PS: You can use a local Model in each action, so I can leave initialization inside the Model constructor. (often I override a base model with [NonAction] utilities as well).
For example, I have an Employee list used widely in your application.
I've added some utility method in a base controller to build up SelectListItems and the likes. Since each and every model inherits from the base, I've got them almost everywhere in the app. Of course the Collection is filled via a dedicated business objec.
What I do is I have a static function in a class that returns a SelectList. The method accepts an Enum value which defines which SelectList to return. In the View the DropDownList or DropDownListFor functions call this function to get the SelectList.
The static function looks like this:
class HelperMethods
{
enum LookupType {Users, Companies, States};
public static SelectList CommonSelectList(LookupType type, int? filterValue = null)
//filterValue can be used if the results need to be filtered in some way
var db = new WhateverEntities();
switch (type)
{
case LookupType.Users:
var list = db.Users.OrderBy(u => u.LastName).ToList()
return new SelectList(list, "ID", "FullName")
break;
case LookupType.Companies
var list = db.Companies.OrderBy(u => u.Name).ToList()
return new SelectList(list, "ID", "Name")
break;
//and so on...
}
}
}
And the view contains this:
#Html.DropDownListFor(m => m.UserID, HelperMethods.CommonSelectList(LookupType.Users))
This way the Model and Controller does not need code to configure a SelectList to send over to the View. It makes it very easy to reuse a SelectList that has already been configured. Also, if a View needs to loop through a list of objects, then this same function can be used to get a list for that. This is the simplest and most convenient way I found of doing this.

Bestpractice DI with ASP.NET MVC and StructureMap - How to inject dependencies in an ActionResult

I edited my whole question, so do not wonder :)
Well, I want to have an ActionResult that takes domain model data and some additional parameters, i.e page index and page size for paging a list. It decide itself if it returns a PartialViewResult or a ViewResult depending on the kind of web request (ajax request or not).
The reffered data shall be mapped automatically by using an IMappingService, which is responsible for transforming any domain model data into a view model.
The MappingService uses AutoMapper for simplicity.
MappingActionResult:
public abstract class MappingActionResult : ActionResult
{
public static IMappingService MappingService;
}
BaseHybridViewResult:
public abstract class BaseHybridViewResult : MappingActionResult
{
public const string defaultViewName = "Grid";
public string ViewNameForAjaxRequest { get; set; }
public object ViewModel { get; set; }
public override void ExecuteResult(ControllerContext context)
{
if (context == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context");
var usePartial = ShouldUsePartial(context);
ActionResult res = GetInnerViewResult(usePartial);
res.ExecuteResult(context);
}
private ActionResult GetInnerViewResult(bool usePartial)
{
ViewDataDictionary viewDataDictionary = new ViewDataDictionary(ViewModel);
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(ViewNameForAjaxRequest))
{
ViewNameForAjaxRequest = defaultViewName;
}
if (usePartial)
{
return new PartialViewResult { ViewData = viewDataDictionary, ViewName = ViewNameForAjaxRequest };
}
return new ViewResult { ViewData = viewDataDictionary };
}
private static bool ShouldUsePartial(ControllerContext context)
{
return context.HttpContext.Request.IsAjaxRequest();
}
}
AutoMappedHybridViewResult:
public class AutoMappedHybridViewResult<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement> : BaseHybridViewResult
{
public AutoMappedHybridViewResult(PagedList<TSourceElement> pagedList)
{
ViewModel = MappingService.MapToViewModelPagedList<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(pagedList);
}
public AutoMappedHybridViewResult(PagedList<TSourceElement> pagedList, string viewNameForAjaxRequest)
{
ViewNameForAjaxRequest = viewNameForAjaxRequest;
ViewModel = MappingService.MapToViewModelPagedList<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(pagedList);
}
public AutoMappedHybridViewResult(TSourceElement model)
{
ViewModel = MappingService.Map<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(model);
}
public AutoMappedHybridViewResult(TSourceElement model, string viewNameForAjaxRequest)
{
ViewNameForAjaxRequest = viewNameForAjaxRequest;
ViewModel = MappingService.Map<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(model);
}
}
Usage in controller:
public ActionResult Index(int page = 1)
{
return new AutoMappedHybridViewResult<TeamEmployee, TeamEmployeeForm>(_teamEmployeeRepository.GetPagedEmployees(page, PageSize));
}
So as you can see the IMappingService is hidden. The controller should not know anything about the IMappingService interface, when AutoMappedHybridViewResult is used.
Is the MappingActionResult with the static IMappingServer appropriate or am I violating the DI principle?
I think a better design is to have a ViewResultFactory that depends on IMappingService, then you can inject that into your controller. Then you call it like so:
public class MyController : Controller
{
IViewResultFactory _viewResultFactory;
ITeamEmployeeRepository _teamEmployeeRepository;
public MyController(IViewResultFactory viewResultFactory)
{
_viewResultFactory = viewResultFactory;
}
public ActionResult MyAction(int page, int pageSize)
{
return
_viewResultFactory.GetResult<TeamEmployee, TeamEmployeeForm>(
_teamEmployeeRepository.GetPagedEmployees(page, pageSize));
}
}
The implementation would like this (you would need to create overloads for each of your HybridViewResult constructors):
public HybridViewResult<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement> GetResult<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(PagedList<TSourceElement> pagedList)
{
return new HybridViewResult<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(_mappingService, pagedList);
}
That way you hide the implementation from your controllers, and you don't have to depend on the container.
There are a few different points that you could inject IMappingService. http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2009/04/08/13-asp.net-mvc-extensibility-points-you-have-to-know.aspx is a good site for help in picking the appropriate extensibility points for .NET MVC.
If you want to stick with having this functionality be a derived ActionResult, then I think you could put the dependency in the ActionInvoker if you want to, but the Controller makes more sense to me. If you don't want the IMappingService in the Controller, you could always wrap it in a HybridViewResultFactory, and access that object in the Controller. In that case your shortcut methods would look like:
public HybridViewResult<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement> AutoMappedHybridView<TSourceElement,TDestinationElement>(PagedList<TSourceElement> pagedList, string viewNameForAjaxRequest)
{
HybridViewResultFactory.Create<TSourceElement, TDestinationElement>(pagedList, viewNameForAjaxRequest);
}
etc.
I'm not sure why you need to use an ActionResult, but if there is no reason that makes it explicitly necessary, you could create a HybridViewModel class and a HybridViewModelBinder class that is injected with the mapping service dependency.
I am assuming you want to use constructor injection, but if you have the StructureMap dependency in your UI assembly, you could access a static dependency resolver class (like Clowers said).
This question would be easier to give a definite answer to if I understood why you using an ActionResult.
It seems like you are using the action result to handle two functionalities that do not necessarily go together all the time, and that could be used separately. Also, there is not a clear indication that it needs to be in an ActionResult.
Presumably, you could (a) leverage the Automapper functionality for results other than html (ViewResult) output, and (b) you could leverage the functionality of auto-detecting ajax requests without needing to automap the model.
It seems to me like the automapping of the view model could be used to inject the view model into the controller action directly, thus removing the controller's dependency on the IMappingService. What you would need is a ModelBinder class to be injected with your IMappingService (the implementation of which I assume contains a repository or datastore type dependency).
Here is a good article explaining how to leverage model binders: http://odetocode.com/blogs/scott/archive/2009/04/27/6-tips-for-asp-net-mvc-model-binding.aspx.
Then you can overwrite the DefaultModelBinder in the classes that need to be Automapped as follows:
public ActionResult DoItLikeThis([AutoMap(typeof(MyDomainModelClass))]MyViewModelClass viewModel){
//controller action logic
}
Now, regarding the HybridViewResult, I would suggest that you handle this with an Action Filter instead. So, you could just use ActionResult or ViewResultBase as the Result type of your action method and decorate it with an action filter, i.e.:
[AutoSelectViewResult]
public ViewResultBase AndDoThisLikeSo(){
//controller action logic
}
I think overall this will be a much better solution than coupling these two functionalities to an ActionResult.

Resources