I am building a mvc based website with ef6 code first type db. Right now i have a web api controller named Categories Controller that works nicely and shells out json data to my js requests.
// GET: api/Categories
public IQueryable<Category> GetCategories()
{
return db.Categories;
}
Now I need to wire up same for products, materials and some other entities. What I would like is something like :
//GET: api/Data/Categories
//GET: api/Data/Products
etc. all wired into one DataController. Is there a way to accomplish this?
For example one Data Controller, with separate region of code for all category specific api actions, product specific api actions and so on. Then I could do /api/Data/Categories/Create or api/Data/Products/Create
Instead of bringing in a new technology, you could handle this by creating a new class that contains both. I am assuming there is no relation between them, such as a Product has Categories, but rather you want both exclusively.
// GET: api/Data/ProductCategories
public IQueryable<ProductsCategory> GetProductsCategories()
{
return GetProductsCategories();
}
...
public class ProductsCategory
{
public IEnumerable<Category> Categories { get; set;}
public IEnumerable<Product> Products{ get; set;}
}
...
public ProductsCategory GetProductsCategories()
{
var products = db.Products.ToList();
var categories = db.Categories.ToList();
var productCategories = new ProductsCategory()
{
Products = products,
Categories = categories
};
return productCategories;
}
Or something to that degree.
Also don't return IQueryable directly, it's redundant and ill advised unless the caller of that API is going to somehow be executing some Query against what has been returned which is unlikey seeing as its WebAPI and not some method. Instead return a List or IEnumerable.
And if you are looking to improve what you have a little bit as well, be sure to wrap that repository that you have in some sort of service, so you can say something along the lines of:
productsService.GetProductsCategories()
Rather than accessing the context directly in your API.
Extended Reading for Repositories and Service Layers
https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/33109/repository-service-design-pattern
Difference between Repository and Service Layer?
The easiest way to do what you want is to implement an OData controller, or a Breeze controller. They will do all the heavylifting to expose your EF model to in Web APi endpoints:
OData
Breeze
They're wuite easy to setup and OData is a recognized standard for this kind of task. They both had prebuilt support for oldering, filtering, paging, including related conllections and so. There are Nuget packages to use both of them.
Breeze also has feature-rich clients for JS and C#, and a lot of extra functionality.
Related
I have a message service with operations like Create, List, Update and Delete.
In this Service I have a ListByMember(int memberId) method.
I need to build two Views, one to list with only the Title of the Message, and another View to List the Title and the Description of the message, and another to list the title and the total of the message answers already received.
I don't know if I create one method in the service layer and transport via DTO all the information from the message entity to the View and in the View I only show the fields that I want or if I create three methods in the service layer to be independent with it's own DTO's and to the specific View.
I'm afraid to create one single service method and if in the future I need a special list of the messages, I will face a problem.
Any advice would be nice.
Thanks.
Views /Controller actions are not the best place to put business logic. Try to have three methods at the service even if it means a little bit of additional code. You have decided to use DTOs to project that really good. One approach you may take is to create a private method to get the DTOs as IQueryable from the repository and expose it via public methods
As an example
// DTOs
public class MessageSummaryADto
{
public int MessageId { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
public class MessageSummaryBDto : MessageSummaryADto
{
public string Description { get; set; }
}
// public methods
public int GetMessageCount()
{
return GetMessageSummary().Count();
}
public IQueryable<MessageSummaryADto> GetMessageSummaryADto()
{
return GetMessageSummary().Select(m => new MessageSummaryADto { MessageId = m.MessageId, Title = m.Title });
}
public IQueryable<MessageSummaryBDto> GetMessageSummaryBDto()
{
return GetMessageSummary();
}
// the private method
private IQueryable<MessageSummaryBDto> GetMessageSummary()
{
return yourMessageRepository.Select(m =>
new MessageSummaryBDto {
MessageId = m.MessageId,
Title = m.Title,
Description = m.Description
}
);
}
If you are not a fan of IQueryable, you can expose the dtos as IList
Good luck
my second answer warrants for two levels of services, a business service and a UI service. You would want to have this approach if you have very specific UI processing such as projections and filters for things such as lists and grids. The business service will expose more generic methods, which would be neutral to the UI
So how it is mapped is;
Domain objects (output: Business Objects)-> Business Service (output generic DTOs) -> UI Service (UI specific DTOs) -> Controller Action -> View
Offloading the UI tasks of slicing and dicing of data to a UI specific service makes the Controller Action very thin (as it should be); generally it would be good if you can limit the number of lines of code in a controller action to a 10~15
Separating UI services from the code business services will make it easy for you to have multiple UIs. For example, when your business service is UI neutral, you may use it to carter to a ASP.Mvc and WPF app
Above approach comes with a price of additional layers to maintain, but if you want a clear separation, it’s worth considering
Cheers
In the examples for ServiceStack I don't see a single application that is ASP.NET MVC website first and then made ServiceStack service second.
Let's take a very simple ASP.NET MVC web application that renders products through Views. It uses controllers, views, models and viewmodels.
Let's say we have a model of Product which gets persisted into a document DB. Let's assume we have a viewmodel of ProductViewModel which gets mapped from Product and display within MVC Razor View/PartialView.
so this is a web side of things..now let's assume we want to add a service returning products to various clients like the Windows 8 applications.
Should the request/response classes be completely disconnected from what we already have? Our ProductViewModel might already contain everything we want to return from the service.
Since we already have Product (model class) we can't have another Product class in the API namespace..well we could but that makes things unclear and I'd like to avoid that.
So, should we introduce standalone ProductRequest class and ProductRequestResponse (inherits ProductViewModel) class in the API namespace?
Like so ProductRequestResponse : ProductViewModel?
What i'm saying is, we already have the Model and ViewModel classes and to construct Request and Response classes for the SS service we would have to create another two files, mostly by copying everything from the classes we already have. This doesn't look DRY to me, it might follow the separation of concerns guidelines but DRY is important too, actually more than separating everything (separating everything leads to duplication of code).
What I would like to see is a case where a web application has already been made, it currently features Models and ViewModels and returns the appropriate Views for display on the Web but can be extended into a fully functional service to support programmatic clients? Like AJAX clients etc...with what we already have.
Another thing:
If you take a look at this example https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Examples/blob/master/src/ServiceStack.MovieRest/MovieService.cs
you will see there is Movie Request class and Movies Request class (one for single movie request, the other one for a list of movies). As such, there are also two services, MovieService and MoviesService, one dealing with requests for a single movie, the other one for a genre of movies.
Now, while I like SS approach to services and I think it is the right one, I don't like this sort of separation merely because of the type of request. What if I wanted movies by director? Would I be inventing yet another request class having a Director property and yet another service (MoviesByDirector) for it?
I think the samples should be oriented towards one service. Everything that has to deal with movies need to be under one roof. How does one achieve that with ServiceStack?
public class ProductsService : Service
{
private readonly IDocumentSession _session;
private readonly ProductsHelperService _productsHelperService;
private readonly ProductCategorizationHelperService _productCategorization;
public class ProductRequest : IReturn<ProductRequestResponse>
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
// Does this make sense?
// Please note, we use ProductViewModel in our Views and it holds everything we'd want in service response also
public class ProductRequestResponse : ProductViewModel
{
}
public ProductRequestResponse GetProducts(ProductRequest request)
{
ProductRequestResponse response = null;
if (request.Id >= 0)
{
var product = _session.Load<Product>(request.Id);
response.InjectFrom(product);
}
return response;
}
}
The Service Layer is your most important Contract
The most important interface that you can ever create in your entire system is your external facing service contract, this is what consumers of your service or application will bind to, i.e. the existing call-sites that often won't get updated along with your code-base - every other model is secondary.
DTOs are Best practices for remote services
In following of Martin Fowler's recommendation for using DTOs (Data Transfer Objects) for remote services (MSDN), ServiceStack encourages the use of clean, untainted POCOs to define a well-defined contract with that should kept in a largely implementation and dependency-free .dll. The benefits of this allows you to be able to re-use typed DTOs used to define your services with, as-is, in your C#/.NET clients - providing an end-to-end typed API without the use of any code-gen or other artificial machinery.
DRY vs Intent
Keeping things DRY should not be confused with clearly stating of intent, which you should avoid trying to DRY or hide behind inheritance, magic properties or any other mechanism. Having clean, well-defined DTOs provides a single source of reference that anyone can look at to see what each service accepts and returns, it allows your client and server developers to start their work straight away and bind to the external service models without the implementation having been written.
Keeping the DTOs separated also gives you the freedom to re-factor the implementation from within without breaking external clients, i.e. your service starts to cache responses or leverages a NoSQL solution to populate your responses with.
It's also provides the authoritative source (that's not leaked or coupled inside your app logic) that's used to create the auto-generated metadata pages, example responses, Swagger support, XSDs, WSDLs, etc.
Using ServiceStack's Built-in auto-mapping
Whilst we encourage keeping separate DTO models, you don't need to maintain your own manual mapping as you can use a mapper like AutoMapper or using ServiceStack's built-in Auto Mapping support, e.g:
Create a new DTO instance, populated with matching properties on viewModel:
var dto = viewModel.ConvertTo<MyDto>();
Initialize DTO and populate it with matching properties on a view model:
var dto = new MyDto { A = 1, B = 2 }.PopulateWith(viewModel);
Initialize DTO and populate it with non-default matching properties on a view model:
var dto = new MyDto { A = 1, B = 2 }.PopulateWithNonDefaultValues(viewModel);
Initialize DTO and populate it with matching properties that are annotated with the Attr Attribute on a view model:
var dto = new MyDto { A=1 }.PopulateFromPropertiesWithAttribute<Attr>(viewModel);
When mapping logic becomes more complicated we like to use extension methods to keep code DRY and maintain the mapping in one place that's easily consumable from within your application, e.g:
public static class MappingExtensions
{
public static MyDto ToDto(this MyViewModel viewModel)
{
var dto = viewModel.ConvertTo<MyDto>();
dto.Items = viewModel.Items.ConvertAll(x => x.ToDto());
dto.CalculatedProperty = Calculate(viewModel.Seed);
return dto;
}
}
Which is now easily consumable with just:
var dto = viewModel.ToDto();
If you are not tied specifically to ServiceStack and just want "fully functional service to support programmatic clients ... with what we already have", you could try the following: Have your controllers return either a ViewResult or a JsonResult based on the request's accept header - Request.AcceptTypes.Contains("text/html") or Request.AcceptTypes.Contains("application/json").
Both ViewResult and JsonResult are ActionResult, so the signature of actions remains the same, and both View() and Json() accept a ViewModel. Furthermore, if you have a ControllerBase you can make a base method (for example protected ActionResult RespondWith(Object viewModel)) which calls either View() or Json() so the change to existing code is minimal.
Of course, if your ViewModels are not pure (i.e. have some html-specific stuff or you rely on some ViewBag magic) then it's a little more work. And you won't get SOAP or other binding types provided by ServiceStack, but if your goal is to support a JSON data interface with minimal code changes to the existing MVC app then this could be a solution.
Lp
I've made a custom model, and I want to mock it. I'm fairly new to MVC, and very new to unit testing. Most approaches I've seen create an interface for the class and then make a mock that implements the same interface. However I can't seem to get this to work when actually passing the interface into the View. Cue "simplified" example:
Model-
public interface IContact
{
void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars);
}
public abstract class Contact : IContact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars = null)
{
//construct email...
}
}
public class Enquiry : Contact
{
//some extra properties...
}
View-
<%# Page Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<project.Models.IContact>" %>
<!-- other html... -->
<td><%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => ((Enquiry)model).Name)%></td>
Controller-
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(IContact enquiry)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return View(enquiry);
enquiry.SendEmail(Request.ServerVariables);
return View("Sent", enquiry);
}
Unit Testing-
[Test]
public void Index_HttpPostInvalidModel_ReturnsDefaultView()
{
Enquiry enquiry = new Enquiry();
_controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "dummy value");
ViewResult result = (ViewResult)_controller.Index(enquiry);
Assert.IsNullOrEmpty(result.ViewName);
}
[Test]
public void Index_HttpPostValidModel_CallsSendEmail()
{
MockContact mock = new MockContact();
ViewResult result = (ViewResult)_controller.Index(mock);
Assert.IsTrue(mock.EmailSent);
}
public class MockContact : IContact
{
public bool EmailSent = false;
void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars)
{
EmailSent = true;
}
}
Upon a HttpPost I get a "Cannot create an instance of an interface" exception. I seems that I can't have my cake (passing a model) and eat it (pass mock for unit testing). Maybe there's a better approach to unit testing models bound to views?
thanks,
Med
I'm going to throw it out there, if you need to mock your models you're doing it wrong. Your models should be dumb property bags.
There is absolutely no reason that your model should have a SendEmail method. That is functionality that should be invoked from a controller calling to an EmailService.
Responding to your question:
After years of working with Separation of Concern (SOC) patterns like MVC, MVP, MVVM and seeing articles from people brighter than me (I wish I could find the one I'm thinking off about this but maybe I read it in a magazine). You will eventually conclude in an enterprise application you will end up with 3 distinct sets of model objects.
Previously I was a very big fan of doing Domain Driven Design (DDD) using a single set of business entities that were both plain old c# objects (POCO) and Persistent Ignorant (PI). Having domain models that are POCO/PI leaves you with a clean slate of objects where there is no code related to accessing the object storage or having other attributes that have schematic meaning for only 1 area of the code.
While this works, and can work fairly well for a period of time, there is eventually a tipping point where the complexity of expressing the relationship between View, Domain Model, and Physical Storage Model becomes too complex to express correctly with 1 set of entities.
To solve the impedance mismatches of View, Domain and Storage you really need 3 sets of models. Your ViewModels will exactly match your views binding to facilitate it to be easy to work with the UI. So this will frequently have things such as adding a List to populate drop downs with values that are valid for your edit view/action.
In the middle is the Domain Entities, these are the entities that you should validate against your business rules. So you will map to/from them on both sides to/from the view and to/from the storage layer. In these entities is where you could attach your code to do validation. I personally am not a fan of using attributes and coupling validation logic into your domain entities. It does make alot of sense to couple validation attributes into your ViewModels to take advantage of the built in MVC client side validation functionality.
For validation I would recommend using a library like FluentValidation (or your own custom one, they're not hard to write) that lets you separate your business rules from your objects. Although with new features with MVC3 you can do remote validation severside and have it display client side, this is an option to handle true business validation.
Finally you have your storage models. As I said previously I was very zealous on having PI objects being able to be reused through all layers so depending on how you setup your durable storage you might be able to directly use your domain objects. But if you take advantage of tools like Linq2Sql, EntityFramework (EF) etc you will most likely have auto generated models with code for interacting with the data provider so you will want to map your domain objects to your persistence objects.
So wrap all of this up this would be a standard logic flow in MVC actions
User goes to edit product page
EF queries the database to get the existing product information, inside the repository layer the EF data objects are mapped to the Business Entities (BE) so all the data layer methods return BEs and have no external coupling to the EF data objects. (So if you ever change your data provider you don't have to alter a single line of code except for the internal implementation)
The controller gets the Product BE and maps it to a Product ViewModel (VM) and adds collections for the different options that can be set for drop down lists
Return View(theview, ProductVM)
User edits the product and submits the form
Client side validation is passed (useful for date validation / number validation instead of having to submit the form for feedback)
The ProductVM gets mapped back to ProductBE at this point you would validate the business rules along the lines ValidationFactory.Validate(ProductBE), if it's invalid return messages back to view and cancel edit, otherwise continue
You pass the ProductBE into your repository model, inside the internal implementation of the data layer you map the ProductBE to the Product Data Entity for EF and update the database.
2016 edit: removed usages of Interface as separation of concerns and interfaces are entirely orthogonal.
Your issue is here:
public ActionResult Index(IContact enquiry)
MVC in the background has to create a concrete type to pass to the method when calling it. In this method's case, MVC needs to create a type which implements IContract.
Which type? I dunno. Neither does MVC.
Instead of using interfaces in order to be able to mock your models, use normal classes that have protected methods which you can override in mocks.
public class Contact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars = null)
{
//construct email...
}
}
public class MockContact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool EmailSent {get;private set;}
public override void SendEmail(NameValueCollection vars = null)
{
EmailSent = true;
}
}
and
public ActionResult Index(Contact enquiry)
It is possible to use interfaces.
See: http://mvcunity.codeplex.com/
I need to make a web application and I want to use MVC. However, my Model can't be one of the standard Models -- the data is not stored in a database but instead in an external application accessible only via a API. Since this is the first MVC application I've implemented I'm relying on examples to understand how to go about it. I can't find any examples of a non-DB based Model. An example of a custom Model would be fine too. Can anyone point me to such a beast? Maybe MVC is just to new and none exist.
It seems like I might be able to get away with the DataSet Model, however I've not seen any examples of how to use this object. I expect an example of DataSet could help me also. (Maybe it is the same thing?)
Please note: I've seen countless examples of custom bindings. This is NOT what I want. I need an example of a custom Model which is not tied to a specific database/table.
UPDATE
I found a good example from MS located here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd405231.aspx
While this is the "answer" to my question, I don't really like it because it ties me to MS's view of the world. #Aaronaught, #jeroenh, and #tvanfosson give much better answers from a meta perspective of moving my understanding (and yours?) forward with respect to using MVC.
I'm giving the check to #Aaronaught because he actually has example code (which I asked for.) Thanks all and feel free to add even better answers if you have one.
In most cases it shouldn't matter what the backing source is for the actual application data; the model should be exactly the same. In fact, one of the main reasons for using something like a repository is so that you can easily change the underlying storage.
For example, I have an MVC app that uses a lot of web services - rarely does it have access to a local database, except for simple things like authentication and user profiles. A typical model class might look like this:
[DataContract(Namespace = "http://services.acme.com")]
public class Customer
{
[DataMember(Name = "CustomerID")]
public Guid ID { get; set; }
[DataMember(Name = "CustomerName")]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then I will have a repository interface that looks like this:
public interface ICustomerRepository
{
Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id);
IList<Customer> List();
}
The "API" is all encapsulated within the concrete repository:
public class AcmeWSCustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository, IDisposable
{
private Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient client;
public AcmeWSCustomerRepository()
: this(new Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient())
public AcmeWSCustomerRepository(Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient client)
{
if (client == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("client");
this.client = client;
}
public void Dispose()
{
client.SafeClose(); // Extension method to close WCF proxies
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id)
{
return client.GetCustomerByID(id);
}
public IList<Customer> List()
{
return client.GetAllCustomers();
}
}
Then I'll also probably have a local testing repository with just a few customers that reads from something like an XML file:
public class LocalCustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository, IDisposable
{
private XDocument doc;
public LocalCustomerRepository(string fileName)
{
doc = XDocument.Load(fileName);
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id)
{
return
(from c in doc.Descendants("Customer")
select new Customer(c.Element("ID").Value, c.Element("Name").Value))
.FirstOrDefault();
}
// etc.
}
The point I'm trying to make here is, well, this isn't tied to any particular database. One possible source in this case is a WCF service; another is a file on disk. Neither one necessarily has a compatible "model". In this case I've assumed that the WCF service exposes a model that I can map to directly with DataContract attributes, but the Linq-to-XML version is pure API; there is no model, it's all custom mapping.
A really good domain model should actually be completely independent of the true data source. I'm always a bit skeptical when people tell me that a Linq to SQL or Entity Framework model is good enough to use throughout the entire application/site. Very often these simply don't match the "human" model and simply creating a bunch of ViewModel classes isn't necessarily the answer.
In a sense, it's actually better if you're not handed an existing relational model. It forces you to really think about the best domain model for your application, and not necessarily the easiest one to map to some database. So if you don't already have a model from a database - build one! Just use POCO classes and decorate with attributes if necessary, then create repositories or services that map this domain model to/from the API.
I think what you are looking for is really a non-DB service layer. Models, typically, are relatively simple containers for data, though they may also contain business logic. It really sounds like what you have is a service to communicate with and need a layer to mediate between the service and your application, producing the appropriate model classes from the data returned by the service.
This tutorial may be helpful, but you'd need to replace the repository with your class that interacts with the service (instead of the DB).
There is no fixed prescription of what a "Model" in MVC should be, just that it should contain the data that needs to be shown on screen, and probably also manipulated.
In a well-designed MVC application, data access is abstracted away somehow anyway, typically using some form of the Repository pattern: you define an abstraction layer (say, an IRepository interface) that defines the contract needed to get and persist data. The actual implementation will usually call a database, but in your case should call your 'service API'.
Here is an example of an MVC application that calls out to a WCF service.
I'm following Steve Sanderson's example from this ASP.NET MVC book on creating a model by hand instead of using diagramming tools to do it for me. So in my model namespace I place a class called MySystemModel with something like the following in it
[Table(Name="tblCC_Business")]
public class Business
{
[Column(IsPrimaryKey=true, IsDbGenerated=false)]
public string BusinessID { get; set; }
// this is done because Business column and Business have interfering names
[Column(Name="Business")] public string BusinessCol { get; set; }
}
This part of it is all fine. The problem however is returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure, but mixing and matching SQL with LINQ modelling. We do this because the LINQ to SQL translation is too slow for some of our queries (there's really no point arguing this point here, it's a business requirement). So basically I use actual SQL statements along with my LINQ models in my "repository" like so:
public IEnumerable<MyType> ListData(int? arg)
{
string query = "SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE argument = {0}";
return _dc.ExecuteQuery<MyType>(query, arg);
//c.GetTable<MyType>(); <-- this is another way of getting all data out quickly
}
Now the problem I'm having is how to return multiple result sets as I'm not extending DataContext, like so:
public ContractsControlRepository()
{
_dc = new DataContext(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["MyConnectionString"].ToString());
}
This link describes how multiple result sets are returned from stored procedures.
[Function(Name="dbo.VariableResultShapes")]
[ResultType(typeof(VariableResultShapesResult1))]
[ResultType(typeof(VariableResultShapesResult2))]
public IMultipleResults VariableResultShapes([Parameter(DbType="Int")] System.Nullable<int> shape)
{
IExecuteResult result = this.ExecuteMethodCall(this, ((MethodInfo)(MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod())), shape);
return ((IMultipleResults)(result.ReturnValue));
}
So how do I turn this into something that can be used by my repository? I just need to be able to return multiple result sets from a repository which contains DataContext, and doesn't extend it. If you copied and pasted the previous extract into a repository like I've got it will just state how ExecuteMethodCall isn't available, but that's only available if you extend DataContext.
Resources
Guy Berstein's Blog
Every time I ask a question that has been hindering me for days on end I end up finding the answer within minutes. Anyway, the answer to this issue is that you have to extend DataContext in your repository. If like me you're worried about having to specify the connection string in every single controller then you can change the constructor in the repository class to something like this:
public ContractsControlRepository()
: base(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["AccountsConnectionString"].ToString()) { }
This way when you instantiate your repository the connection is set up for you already, which gives you less to worry about, and actually centralizes specifying the connection string. Extending DataContext also means you have access to all of the protected methods such as ExecuteMethodCall used for calling stored procedures and bringing back, if you will, multiple result sets.