I am building an ASP.Net MVC application using a ViewModel approach to keep my domain entities separate from the "models" used by my UI. I am using the following convention for naming my ViewModel classes. ViewModelName = ViewName + "ViewModel". For example:
Index + ViewModel = IndexViewModel
So far, so good, this is a fairly common pattern and there is a lot of guidance on this topic on StackOverflow and elsewhere. My question concerns child objects used by my ViewModels. If my ViewModel requires a class with properties identical to my a domain model object, I simply include the domain model within my ViewModel. For example:
public class PersonViewModel
{
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
public string SomeOtherProperty { get; set; }
}
However, I am not sure what naming convention to use when I need a child object with different properties from my domain model. For example if Address needed a few additional properties besides what is in the Address domain model, what should I call it? I considered AddressViewModel like so:
public class PersonViewModel
{
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public AddressViewModel Address { get; set; }
public string SomeOtherProperty { get; set; }
}
but that just doesn't feel right to me. My gut instinct is that the ViewModel suffix should only be for the top level ViewModel.
I am looking for suggestions from other developers on what naming conventions they use in this scenario, specifically what would you call the child object in this case?
I'm going to put an answer on this just because no one else has! (I know I'm a little late to this party!)
I've pondered over this exact thing many times and tried different conventions over the years. The one thing I picked up on is that you are using a naming convention...
If your naming convention is to suffix your UI model classes with 'ViewModel' then the child models should have the same suffix otherwise you're breaking your own convention!
Also lets say you have an Address table (or whatever you have) and a Customer can have an address and a Company has an address and they both use the same table, then you may use the same child model for both parent models. It seems right to have an AddressViewModel. One day you might have a View/PartialView and it's model is IEnumerable<AddressViewModel>
I know there's no real right answer to this, but this is my answer :-)
Related
I'm working with Entity Framework with a database-first approach. I already defined the model inside my application. Now I'm working with controllers and views. I used scaffolding in order to create controllers. Now I want to create rows.
Let's say I want to create employees, and let's say the DBA and EF made this possible:
public partial class TBL_EMPLOYEE
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public TBL_EMPLOYEE()
{
this.TBL_EMPLOYEE = new HashSet<TBL_EMPLOYEE>();
}
public int EMPLOYEE_ID { get; set; }
public String CO_WORKER_NUMBER { get; set; }
public string NAME { get; set; }
public string LAST_NAME { get; set; }
public string SALARY { get; set; }
public string PHONE_NUMBER { get; set; }
public string EMAIL { get; set; }
public string { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
}
Now, I need a view to create an employee, let's call this view VIEW 1
In this view, the user only needs to specify name and last name values. Both are required.
Now, in this VIEW 1 case I could use the following data annotations attributes in the same class, that'd be:
[Required]
public string NAME { get; set; }
[Required]
public string LAST_NAME { get; set; }
Now, let's go to the next case. I need another View, let's call this VIEW 2
In this one, the user needs to specify all values for all attributes. All of them are required except for name and last name.
THE REAL QUESTION
How can I use the same model class for both views? The example above here might seem a bit silly and trivial validations but I've been in bigger projects where entities are bigger and the idea of having different ViewModel classes is just so much work.
I've stumbled upon this in my .NET developments, to the point I had to create a ViewModel class per view in order to be specific with what the user needs to input and their validation. Is this the only way?
To avoid duplicating models with minor variations, try this:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18898112/6850962
Basically, create a base model with data annotations that apply in all situations (eg: DisplayName) and then extend the model for variations (eg: Required attribute).
If you are trying to use your Entity Framework entities approach, I wouldn't put validation attributes on those entities. I would either:
create separate distinct classes and then copy data from the EF entities to the models, and vice versa on update (either by writing the code explicitly, or using a tool like AutoMapper or many others). Then you can define the validation rules anyway you want. Unfortunately this approach does tightly couple validation to the model and thus model reuse may not be as possible.
Use a more fluid validation framework like FluentValidation (https://github.com/JeremySkinner/FluentValidation). The benefit to this is that you define an external class with the rules internal, which can be applied differently depending on the situation. The model may still need some indicator on the model itself to figure out which rules apply, but this is another functional approach to handling the scenario you describe.
In MVC theory, the Model is the business domain class. For instance, we can have a Person class:
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
In ASP.NET MVC, a ViewModel class is often used. This class can be tailored to suit a specific View:
public class PersonViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool Deactivate { get; set; }
}
In this example, FirstName and LastName will be combined in one string (Name), and there will also be a "Deactivate" checkbox on the form which will cause deactivation of the person.
In Controller, we populate the PersonViewModel object from the Person object. But, on the very first line of the View, we declare that the Model for this View is PersonViewModel.
#model PersonViewModel
Isn't the Model actually the class that is bound to the View (at least as far as ASP.NET MVC is concerned)?
If my Model is actually the PersonViewModel class, can I call this class just PersonModel? Or is this wrong and misleading?
In my opinion, this is easier to write (and read), and it would also be easier to explain to developers just starting with ASP.NET MVC. Isn't it better to leave out the ViewModel term completely, which can be confused with the ViewModel in the MVVM pattern?
Of course there is no absolute answer to this question,
What the convention "says" is that "PersonViewModel" is a class that is based on "Person" class, but is to be used in an MVC View.
Even in the basic MVC projects you have LoginViewModel etc... so it is also should be understandable for new mvc developers.
For just using PersonModel, is confusing because "Person" is already a Model, so why naming a class PersonModel? doesn't make sense.
If you want to shorten it, you should use PersonView. (but again, the convention is PersonViewModel)
I think that there is no good answer for this question. Both of the names you provided are self explanatory and could be used.
As Robert C. Martin writes in his books in such situation the most important thing is consistency and standardization. If you work in team of few developers you should use common approach to such problem and always use same code pattern to avoid confusion. Because such confusion is a waste of developers time.
I would recommend you this Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship brilliant book about clean code where you can find answers and suggestions for many problems like this one.
In my current team we would use such convention:
PersonDom - person data object model
Person - person view model
I have a details view that is typed to IEnumerable. The view with a bunch of drop downs that let you add filters to the list of records rendered.
All these dropdowns correspond to properties on the MVC model:
public class Record
{
public string CustomerNumber { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
public string LineOfBusiness{ get; set; }
public DateTime? Date { get; set; }
}
Now, I'm using my model as my dto to shuffle data between my controller and my repo. Since all my drop down filters represent the model properties, I pass my model to a repo retrieval method, check its properties and filter based on its values? In other words:
public IEnumerable<TradeSpendRecord> Get(TradeSpendRecord record)
{
IQueryable<tblTradeSpend> query = _context.tblRecords;
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(record.CustomerName))
query = query.Where(x => x.CustomerNumber == record.CustomerNumber);
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(record.LineOfBusiness))
query = query.Where(r => r.LOB == record.LineOfBusiness);
SNIP
Hope this isn't too subjective, but I'm wondering if anyone has any input about whether this is a good/bad practice. I haven't seen a whole lot of examples of dynamic filtering like I need to do, and am looking for some guidance.
Thanks,
Chris
If you're doing what I think you're doing, I'm not sure this is the best way of doing it.
Keep your 'Models' in your MVC/presentation layer (whether this is one physical assembly or not) dedicated to your presentation layer. The only things that should be touching them are your Views and your Controllers. You don't want what should be independent entities to be so tightly coupled to your View Models.
I'd suggest creating a separate TradeSpendFilter class, which, at its simplest, exposes the filterable properties of your domain entity (likely more than any given View Model). You'd then pass this into your "filtering service" or whatever it may be. This also means you can extend your filtering functionality independent of both your domain models and your MVC app. For example, if you suddenly want to filter multiple objects, you can simply change...
public class TradeSpendFilter
{
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
...
}
...to...
public class TradeSpendFilter
{
public IEnumerable<string> CustomerNames { get; set; }
...
}
... without causing all sorts of problems for your MVC app.
Additionally, it will also mean you can make use of your filtering functionality elsewhere, without tying further components to your MVC app and ending up in a bootstrapped mess.
I read this q/a Real example of TryUpdateModel, ASP .NET MVC 3 and was really interested on #ben-foster response.
I started doing a comment on that answer but got quite long, so started a new Question.
Having ViewModels for everything approach (which i like a lot) get me into some 'weird scenarios' that i want advice in how should I do.
Imagine this structure :
public class ProductListEditableViewModel {
List<ProductEditViewModel> products {get;set;}
}
public class ProductEditViewModel {
List<PriceViewModel> prices {get;set;}
}
public class PriceViewModel {
CurrencyViewModel currency {get;set;}
}
and so on ... ? do you really make one view model for each inner class? how then you map all that to the Model Object?
Also, that covers the Edit, but I have an Add, a send via email, and potentially more Views so more ViewModels!! should i end like something :
AddCurrencyViewModel
QuickAddCurrencyViewModel
EditCurrencyViewModel
ListCurrencyViewModel
DeleteCurrencyViewModel
ShareCurrencyViewModel
all having the 'almost same' properties ?
Should all those be packed into one file ?
Also do i need all this all viewModels or a inheritance approach might be better?
If you can, I´ll appreciate elaborate on complex scenarios
Also, I use a DTO approach to expose some of the model objects into web service / apis, so I already have some form of mapping already in place where this DTO are not exactly my ViewModels, should I remove one of them? what´s the suggestion in this scenario ?
I´m using entity framework but i think the question is (or should be) ORM agnostic.
Not using UoW pattern (will this helps?) as looks it´s gets more complicated as the depth of the object increases.
Thanks a lot!
We typically have a view model per view so yes, if you have lots of views you will have lots of view models.
In typical CRUD applications we often have very similar views, for example Add and Update. In these cases, yes we use inheritance rather than writing duplicate code - usually Add subclasses Update.
public class AddFoo : UpdateFoo {
public AddFoo() {
// set up defaults for new Foo
}
}
public class UpdateFoo {
public string Name { get; set; }
// etc.
}
We attempted to "share" view models between views in the past and normally ended up in a world of pain.
With regard to your "weird scenario" - this does look weird indeed, but perhaps because I don't understand your application.
The goal of your view model is to provide the information to the view that is needed and ideally to flatten any complex objects so they are easier to work with. You shouldn't split your view models up like your example unless it makes sense to do so.
Let's say I wanted to a create a view where the customer could change their contact details. Taking the following domain object:
public class Customer {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get;set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
I'd probably flatten this to a view model like so:
public class UpdateAddressModel {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string AddressLine1 { get; set; }
public string AddressLine2 { get; set; }
public string AddressCity { get; set; }
// etc.
}
Of course there will be occasions where it doesn't make sense to do this, for example a dashboard view in an online store where you have a list of products going out of stock and a list of recent orders - these two things are unrelated but are required by your view:
public class DashboardModel {
public List<Product> ProductsGoingOutOfStock { get; set; }
public List<Order> NewOrders { get; set; }
}
how then you map all that to the Model Object?
I'm assuming by Model Object you mean your data/domain model. The key takeaway here is that the view model you use to render your view is unlikely to be the same as the "models" you POST to the server and if they are, you're probably over-POSTing or you have some crazy enter-everything data capture screen that will make your eyes bleed.
I find it helps to think of what you send to your server as Commands and what you use to render your views as view models.
So the answer to your question - how do you map your complex view model to your data model? - Quite simply, you don't. You should send commands to the server that perform a specific task e.g. updating an address.
There's no hard and fast rule in how you structure your view models but generally go with what makes sense and if it starts to feel too complicated you're probably trying to do too much with one view.
I hope this helps. You'll find lots of posts relating to this matter on my blog.
I realize this is an old-ish question but I did want to address one of the questions posed by the OP that was not answered.
Should all those [ViewModels] be packed into one file ?
Most of the examples I see put each ViewModel in a separate file, so the dominant convention seems to be one file per viewmodel, but I found in practice that this seems to be overkill. Instead I put all viewmodels for a particular controller in one file with multiple viewmodels in it. So for example if User is my Controller and I have several viewmodels associated with this controller such as UserAddViewModel, UserEditViewModel, UserDeleteViewModel I put all of the viewmodels for User in one file called UserViewModels.cs
I am creating a Web application using ASP.NET MVC, and I'm trying to use domain-driven design. I have an architecture question.
I have a WebControl table to store keys and values for lists so they can be editable. I've incorporated this into my business model, but it is resulting in a lot of redundant code and I'm not sure it belongs there. For example, in my Request class I have a property called NeedType. Because this comes from a list, I created a NeedType class to provide the values for the radio buttons. I'm showing just one example here, but the form is going to have probably a dozen or so lists that need to come from the database.
[edit, to clarify question] What's a better way to do this? Are these list objects really part of my domain or do they exist only for the UI? If not part of the domain, then they don't belong in my Core project, so where do they go?
public class Request : DomainObject
{
public virtual int RequestId { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime SubmissionDate { get; set; }
public virtual string NeedType { get; set; }
public virtual string NeedDescription { get; set; }
// etc.
}
public class NeedType : DomainObject
{
public virtual int NeedTypeId { get; set; }
public virtual string NeedTypeCode { get; set; }
public virtual string NeedTypeName { get; set; }
public virtual int DisplayOrder { get; set; }
public virtual bool Active { get; set; }
}
public class RequestController : Controller
{
private readonly IRequestRepository repository;
public RequestController()
{
repository = new RequestRepository(new HybridSessionBuilder());
}
public RequestController(IRequestRepository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public ViewResult Index(RequestForm form)
{
ViewData.Add("NeedTypes", GetNeedTypes());
if (form == null)
{
form = new RequestForm();
form.BindTo(repository.GetById(125));
}
}
private NeedType[] GetNeedTypes()
{
INeedTypeRepository repo = new NeedTypeRepository(new HybridSessionBuilder());
return repo.GetAll();
}
}
Create a seperate viewmodel with the data you need in your view. The Model in the M of MVC is not the same as the domainmodel. MVC viewmodels are dumb DTO's without behaviour, properties only. A domain model has as much behaviour as possible. A domain model with get;set; properties only is considered an anti-pattern called "anemic domain model". There are 2 places where most people put the viewmodels: in the web layer, close to the views and controllers, or in a application service layer.
Edit:
When you only need to display a list of all needtypes in the database and one request in your view, I would indeed create one viewmodel with the request and the list of needtypes as properties. I don't think a call to multiple repositories in a controller is a smell, unless you have a larger application and you might want a seperate application service layer that returns the whole viewmodel with one method call.
I think it might also be a good idea to follow the advise of Todd Smith about value object.
When the needtypes can be added or edited by users at runtime, needtype should be an entity. When the needtypes are hardcoded and only changed with new releases of the project, needtype should be a value object and the list of needtypes could be populated by something like NeedType.GetAll() and stored in the database by adding a column to the request table instead of a seperate needtype table.
If it comes from a list, then I'm betting this is a foreign key. Don't think about your UI at all when designing your domain model. This is simply a case where NeedType is a foreign key. Replace the string NeedType with a reference to an actual NeedType object. In your database, this would be a reference to an id.
When you're building your list of NeedType choices, you simply need to pull every NeedType. Perhaps keeping it cached would be a good idea if it doesn't change much.
Your NeedType looks like a value object to me. If it's read-only data then it should be treated as a value object in a DDD architecture and are part of your domain.
A lot of people run into the "omg so much redundancy" issue when dealing with DDD since you're no longer using the old Database -> DataTable -> UI approach.