To make my question easier to understand I attached a screenshot, containing views, model and controller scripts. Please click the link below to view the screenshot.
http://ithighway.co.uk/others/ProblemMVC.gif
Thanks!
Note:To keep things simpler I removed some lines and comments from controller and views.
In your Action method, you are not getting SearchBox model. First you need to get the model in the Action method and then check for Model.IsValid, if that condition fails simply return the model to view. That will make sure it will display the errors.
Having said that, this is server side validation. You can also do a client side validation using JQuery.
It looks like you forgot to put the #model MvcBlog.Models.User.SeachBox declaration at the top of your _SeachBox.cshtml. (which is why you have the red line under model.txtSearch)
The partial view needs this declaration to know what type of model it has.
I would also use a Html.TextBoxFor instead of a Html.TextBox for the actual search field. This will strongly bind your ViewModel to your view.
Related
I'm confused about the way Microsoft is displaying the login page in their template site. The specific phrasing for "User name", "Password", and "Remember me?" is set in the model itself. This seems completely backwards to me. I thought that the entire point of the MVC pattern was to help with separation of concerns; that the text displayed on the view would not be tied to the model like that. I would think you would want to just have "User name" in plain text in the view, that way it can be changed to "User ID" or translated to another language easily, without changing the model.
When creating a new page that works similarly to the login page, should I be following their template for this? Is there some advantage to having the display text defined in the model itself?
Actually what you should be passing to the view is not the model. It is a view model. View models are classes specifically tailored to meet the requirements of a given view. So it is inside this view model that you could decorate your properties with the [Display] attribute to change the text of the corresponding label or simply set it in the view when using the Html.LabelFor helper as second argument.
You can decorate viewmodel property with attibute from “System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations” namespace and use for display label and validate model in more views and controller action. For this purpose you can use model instead viewmodel.
I'm new to Ajax, but I think I know how to reasonably use MVC + model binding.
What I'm trying to do is to create an Add button (or Ajax.ActionLink) to add a new row in my grid for data entry. Example: Think of a typical Order entry system with Order (header) and Product (items). My OrderViewModel contains an "Order" object, and the Order object contains a collection List.
The way I plan to do this is that my View render the grid in a PartialView, and the PartialView is a simple for-loop to create the table tags from the List. I will use the default model binder (for collections).
Anyone have suggestions on how to do this?
I've already figured out how to do this using jQuery, but I want (i think I want) to try and use Ajax so that I can add my custom business logic (e.g. like setting defaults, translations, etc.)as opposed to do this client-side.
In other words, I want to do do something similar to what the Telerik grid does with its Ajax Editing with the Add/Remove link/buttons.
Tips and sample code would be greatly appreciated.
One of my challenges, and not sure if I'm going down the wrong way, is that I don't know how to pass back the model back to the Controller Action from the Ajax submit. When I look at Telerik's code, it looks like they store the persisted items in HttpContext.Session, and this is exactly the reason why I don't want to use their grid.
Thanks.
They might choose the session repository storage for demonstration purposes. If you transform the logic from their SessionProductRepository class for your model and implement identical Update/Insert/Delete methods for it, you'll probably get what you want.
I'm stuck! I'm under the impression that the _layout.cshtml file is used for MasterPage-like content. Everything there is rendered on every page. Naturally, I want to write the code for rendering my sidebar menu in that file.
I want to dynamically display a list of Categories from my DB, but I'm having a problem with passing the actual model of categories to Layout.cshtml since it seems no controller actually touches it.
Any suggestions?
Otherwise please tell me how to approach this problem. I've been wracking my brain for the past three days and still no elegant solution.
I need to:
Dynamically fetch a list of Categories from the DB.
Display this list of Categories on every single view. (Hence the use of _layout.cshtml)
Elegantly handle each different categories click.
I'm at my wits end. :P How would you solve this?
_layout.cshtml
#if(isSectionDefined("Categories"))
{
<div id="sidebar">
#RenderSection("Categories", required: false )
</div>
}
index.cshtml
#section Categories {
<ul>
<li>Category One</li>
<li>Category Two</li>
<li>Category Three</li>
</ul>
}
see this : http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/12/30/asp-net-mvc-3-layouts-and-sections-with-razor.aspx
Any viewmodel that you pass to your view is automatically available within your master page. If you do not use RenderAction/Action which is the best approach, then you must create the necessary master page data in every action and add it to viewdata - either by having a common base class for your strongly typed viewmodel that contains all master page data or by using the viewdata dictionary.
I would strongly recommend that you go down the html.action approach though. In this way, you have a totally separate controller action for dealing with your list of categories. This action can retrieve the neccesary category data and return the categorylist usercontrol as a partialview and you will not have to worry about polluting all your other actions with this data.
As I see it, ViewData (and its relatives like ViewBag, Model, etc.) is meant for the specific current view. Your _Layout.cshtml is not specific to the current view; and it would be awkward if EVERY controller would have to pass the categories data in addition to whatever else data it needs to pass for the view.
Instead, what I do, is provide a static method in one of my helper classes that retrieves the categories from the DB. I also do some caching there, so that I do not have to hit the DB on every single request. The _Layout.cshtml then simply calls this static method. Simple and elegant.
If you wish, you can bring this out to a partial view, make it a helper method, whatever.
One note of caution though - my custom error view also uses the same _Layout.cshtml, and if the DB goes down, you get an exception trying to display the exception. ASP.NET MVC is smart enough to detect this and abort processing, but you're left with a nondescript default error page. What I did was to place try...catch statements around these dangerous calls, which quietly ignore the exception if the current page is the error view.
I've achieved something similar by having my ViewModels implement an Interface which has members that contain the menu data. In my action method I set that data. Then in my view I check to see if my view-model implements that inteface, pull the menu data out and render the menu (in a partial view actually)
This may be more of a best practice question.
I have three views (create/details/edit) that all link to their own results view (createResults/detailsResults/editResults). Each results view shares a partial with a results table on it.
When a user submits one of the three (c/d/e) views, should each results view have its own action, even tho the action will quite literally do the exact same thing (search on the information on the c/d/e view)? I'd rather not duplicate this code if not necessary.
Should I have one action, and pass in something that tells the action which results view to direct to? Is there an easy way to get the referring view in the action?
If you have 3 actions you don't need to duplicate code. Why not refactor the common code into a single private method on the controller, or perhaps even move it into an action filter?
I would make a single action with a string parameter containing the view name.
You can play with the routing table to make the URLs prettier.
Sorry if this is a basic question - I'm having some trouble making the mental transition to ASP.NET MVC from the page framework.
In the page framework, I often use ASCX files to create small, encapsulated chunks of functionality which get inclded in various places throughout a site. If I'm building a page and I need one of these controls - I just add a reference and everything just works.
As far as I can tell, in MVC, the ASCX file is just a partial view. Does this mean that wherever I want to add one of these units of functionality I also have to add some code to the controller's action method to make sure the relevant ViewData is available to the ASCX?
If this is the case, it seems like a bit of a step backwards to me. It means, for example, that I couldn't just 'drop' a control into a master page without having to add code to every controller whose views use that master page!
I suspect I'm missing something - any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
- Chris
As far as I can tell, in MVC, the ASCX
file is just a partial view. Does this
mean that wherever I want to add one
of these units of functionality I also
have to add some code to the
controller's action method to make
sure the relevant ViewData is
available to the ASCX?
Yes.
However, you can use a RenderAction method in your view instead of RenderPartial, and all of your functionality (including the data being passed to the sub-view) will be encapsulated.
In other words, this will create a little package that incorporates a controller method, view data, and a partial view, which can be called with one line of code from within your main view.
Your question has been answered already, but just for sake of completeness, there's another option you might find attractive sometimes.
Have you seen how "controls" are masked on ASP.NET MVC? They are methods of the "HtmlHelper". If you want a textbox bound to "FirstName", for example, you can do:
<%= Html.Textbox("FirstName") %>
And you have things like that for many standard controls.
What you can do is create your own methods like that. To create your own method, you have to create an extension method on the HtmlHelper class, like this:
public static class HtmlHelperExtensions
{
public static string Bold(this HtmlHelper html, string text)
{
return "<b>" + text + "</b>\n";
}
}
Then in your view, after opening the namespace containing this class definition, you can use it like this:
<%= Html.Bold("This text will be in bold-face!") %>
Well, this is not particularly useful. But you can do very interesting things. One I use quite often is a method that takes an enumeration and created a Drop Down List with the values from this enumeration (ex: enum Gender { Male, Female }, and in the view something like Gender: <%= Html.EnumDropDown(Model.Gender) %>).
Good luck!
You can render a partial view and pass a model object to.
<% Html.RenderPartial("MyPartial", ViewData["SomeObject"]);
In your partial view (.ascx) file, you can then use the "Model" object (assuming you've inherited the proper object in your # Control deceleration) to do whatever you need to with that object.
You can, ofcourse, not pass and Model and just take the partial view's text and place it where you want it.
In your main view (.aspx file), you will need to define the proper object in the ViewData that you're passing to the partial view.
Another method you can do is use:
<% Html.RenderAction("MyAction", "MyController", new { Parameter1="Value1"}) %>
What the previous method does is call a controller Action, take its response, and place it where you called the "RenderAction()" method. Its the equivalent of running a request against a controller action and reading the response, except you place the response in another file.
Google "renderaction and renderpartial" for some more information.