When I use RedirectToAction("MyView", "MyController") sometimes the redirection is very slow to render the destination view.
It doesn't always happen.
I am using ASP.net MVC4 with IIS7.5
How can I prevent this problem and speed up the redirection?
I will put this here as code will not show very well in the comments section. If the action method you are redirecting to is in the same controller you are currently in, it is simpler and more efficient to call that method directly and return its results instead of the redirect response generated by the RedirectToAction method. Just to make sure we are on the same page, RedirectToAction actually returns a redirect response (302) to the client asking it to issue a new request to the action method you have specified as per MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.mvc.controller.redirecttoaction(v=vs.108).aspx. Some code to illustrate:
public ActionResult MyAction(){
//do some work here
Return View(MyModel);
}
public ActionResult ActionIAmCurrentlyIn(){
//Do Soe work here
return RedirectToAction ("MyAction", "MyController"); //This costs an extra trip across the wire
return MyAction(); // Does same thing but without the extra trip to the client
}
This overhead of the extra trip becomes more significant if there are parameters being passed along to "MyAction" and as the network speed goes down.
Responding as an answer because I don't have enough rep to add a comment...
#JTMon In your code the "return MyAction();" can cause potential issues because the "MyAction" action will actually try to load a view named "ActionIAmCurrentlyIn" since that is the action that's specified in the route values (at least I assume that's where it's getting it from, I haven't actually dug into the code to find out).
This can be resolved by specifying the view name in MyAction:
return view("MyAction", MyModel);
To prevent this problem and speed up the redirection use:
return Redirect("~/MyController/MyView");
This approach will not change client-server interaction.
You can use RedirectToActionPermanent("View","Controller"); for it.
Related
If I have 2 controller actions:
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Login()
{
//...
return View();
}
and
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Login(FormCollection values)
{
//...
return RedirectToAction("Index","Home");
}
It seems that the Post decoration is required for this to work (which makes sense), but the HttpGet decoration is entirely optional. It works fine with or without. It seems that MVC defaults controller actions to HttpGet unless otherwise specified.
I'll have to decided if I want a future reader of my code to have to figure that out on my own or not, or whether I want to have to remember to add HttpGet everywhere for consistency. But my question is not about whether it is a good practice to include the explicit decoration even though it is defaulted that way already.
My question is: is it ALWAYS the case that I don't need to decorate controller methods with HttpGet? Is there some way that this can bite me if I do or do not explicitly specify? I've searched on this a but and all I can find is posts describing why you might want to use both annotations rather than the reason for/against including the HttpGet specifically.
You don't have to specify this explicitly, no. However, please note:
Not specifying the verb on an action will mean that the method accepts both GET and POST. If there are two actions, however, the one labelled POST will be used for POST and the other will default for GETs.
Applying HttpGet will mean an action accepts only GET requests.
Labelling actions as GET can make it more obvious to other developers what your intention is.
Is there some way that this can bite me if I do or do not explicitly specify?
Not very likely. I could imagine a situation where something might be showing some strange behaviour or not working as expected because of it, but it'd be rare.
Is there some way that this can bite me if I do or do not explicitly specify?
Here I want to develop an answer of Rowan Freeman about the consequences of not using [HttpGet] explicitly for every GET method.
As it was already mentioned, a method without [HttpGet] annotation will accept both GET and POST request (unless there is another method with same name that is annotated with [HttpPost]). If a method is explicitly annotated with [HttpGet], 405 Method Not Allowed will be returned.
One consequence that I could imagine is that if an attacker wanted to send big amount of data through GET request, it would have a limit. Without [HttpGet] annotation, this limit is not a problem, because an attacker can switch to POST and do the same without any limit.
Another similar case is that:
HTTPGet can carry only string data whereas HTTPPost can carry both string and binary data.
Yet another thing is that POST requests will probably not entirely be logged on a server, therefore an attacker can somehow hide it's activity from an administrator as attackers payloads won't be visible (body won't be present in logs).
A comparison between POST and GET (which I cited from) can be found here:
ASP.NET MVC 5 – HTTPGET And HTTPPOST Method With Example
Of course, all of these cases are pretty rare, but this is what exploiting is about - finding rare things that can turn out to be a vulnerability.
To conclude, it is a good habit to always write [HttpGet] annotation in controller methods. It is just a one line that can improve security of your web application.
I wanted to put a random image on every viewpage of my mvc project. So i created a method that returns a partialView and call that method in the shared Layout page.
This works fine when I try to login with a correct username and password. The used is loged in and every page contains a random image. But when I give the invalid combination of username and password. The shared layout page does not find the controller I want to call with my #Html.Action and actualy the login view should be returned with an error message 'invalid combination of username and password' and ofcourse, with the random image.
InnerException:
{"A public action method 'RandomSponsor' was not found on controller 'Project.WebUI.Controllers.HomeController'."}
My Html.Action in shared layout.
#Html.Action("RandomSponsor", "Home")
Method in homecontroller.
[HttpGet]
[ChildActionOnly]
public ActionResult RandomSponsor()
{
var model = service.getRandomSponsor();
return PartialView("RandomSponsor", model);
}
The getRandomSponsor method works fine, this one always returns one random string value that is returned to the RandomSponsor.cshtml view.
RandomSponsor.schtml (only contains the image string)
<img src="~/Content/Images/Advert/#(Model)" alt="a" />
I searched the web for this problem but didn't found a solution, does anyone know the answer to this one?
Might it be something with HttpGet of HttpPost?
Regards.
If the executing request is a POST, then it will try to find a method RandomSponsor accepting HttpPost. If this makes sense, you could remove HttpGet and that should do the trick.
This can also happen if you have many layers of calls that start with a POST (I had an action returning a view returning a partial view calling RenderAction), then the call to RenderAction will still look for a POST method
Very similar to this problem that I had here - How to solve "public action method 'methodActionName' was not found on controller 'controllerNameController'"
And if you want to continue to accept the HTTP GET verb and fix the problem of cascading post request into a get request add this to your method
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Get | HttpVerbs.Post)]
Keep in mind that [HttpGet] is the same as [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Get)]
This will happen if the request is a POST but the controller method is annotated [HttpGet]. For example, you might issue a POST that returns a view containing partial views called with #Html.Action, using controller methods annotated with [HttpGet]. If the original request is a POST, all of the controller methods subsequently called will need to support POST.
To fix it you can use the AcceptVerbs attribute to specify that your controller method accepts both POST and GET:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post | HttpVerbs.Get)]
Received this error all of the sudden on several different PartialViews (not all of them) when customizing an install of MVCForum. We had not made any changes to the methods or views concerning the errors so it was really frustrating as to why they were broken.
After trying the other solutions on this post and others, went back through the changes made and what ended up stopping the errors was that we had changed the bindings in IIS to another domain that had the 'enforce lower case url' URL Rewrite rule enabled.
When we disabled the enforce lowercase rule, the errors stopped and the site worked as it was supposed to. It's not a URL Rewrite issue (I don't think) because we are able to enforce www using it with no errors. It's a lowercase rewrite issue. Didn't matter if we had the lowercase rule before or after the www rule.
This solution probably doesn't apply to many cases of this error, but it worked for us. Hopefully someone else can benefit from such a simple fix.
I just solved this issue strangely enough on my local PC, by making sure my entire request path was lower case. So give that a try.
I know this is a pretty old thread - but as it's top Google result I thought I'd add a potentially missing link for MVC.Net 5.2.6.
Scenario
I was attempting to call a child action via #Html.Action("ActionName", new { Id = 123})
and received an error much like the above, but none of the other solutions worked. I could hit the controller action externally (i.e. HttpGet), but the child action kept throwing the exception and was driving me nuts!
The solution I found
After two-ing and fro-ing for some time, I started playing with my routing attributes. I had the controller set up as:
[Route("{action}")]
[RoutePrefix("Prefix")]
[RouteArea("AreaName")]
As there was only one public action i wanted, "Index", I removed the {action} and placed an explicit route attribute on the public action and put my ChildActionOnly attribute back on the child.
After I did that, I hit the run and hey presto - the action was hit.
Might be worth a try if you're getting this error while using attribute routing. Note I did attempt to route the child action and this didn't work.
In my case, the same issue was happening randomly with the implicit :
using (Html.BeginForm())
Changing above to :
using (Html.BeginForm("Action","Controller", FormMethod.Post))
fixed this issue.
Did you give it a shot with Html.RenderAction? It is typically faster then Html.Action as it interact directly into the response stream as opposed to building a string.
You can view the following topics for more info:
What is the difference (if any) between Html.Partial(view, model) and Html.RenderPartial(view,model) in MVC2?
Html.Partial vs Html.RenderPartial & Html.Action vs Html.RenderAction
Another thing to note is that for Html.Action or Html.RenderAction, your view doesn't need to be in Shared folder, that is only required if you use Html.Partial or Html.RenderPartial
I have an ExcelResult action result that returns Microsoft Excel documents, based off the Stephen Walther tip. Basically it just writes a stream out to the Response. When debugging VS 2010 (ASP.NET Dev Server), it runs fine, but when I run it on an IIS 6 box, I get the following error:
The view 'GenerateExcel' or its master was not found. The following locations were searched:
~/Views/Home/GenerateExcel.aspx
~/Views/Home/GenerateExcel.ascx
~/Views/Shared/GenerateExcel.aspx
~/Views/Shared/GenerateExcel.ascx
There is no associated View, and therefore no file, but there shouldn't have to be. What am I doing wrong?
UPDATE
By simply returning void instead of an ActionResult, I no longer have this issue. Instead of returning the ExcelResult, I'm explicitly calling it's ExecuteResult method, which is writing to the output stream.
Before
public ActionResult GenerateExcel()
{
return this.Excel(parameters);
}
After
public void GenerateExcel()
{
ExcelResult excelResult = this.Excel(parameters);
excelResult.ExecuteResult(null);
}
After that, I had security issues with my NTLM authentication, but they 'went away' (meaning I expect them to come back). For now, though, everything is working properly.
Make sure your action method does not return a ActionResult:
public void DoSomething()
I didn't look at the code for the action result in much detail, but there must be something wrong with your action result. Did you inherit from some other action result as opposed to the ActionResult class? Did you call base.ExecuteResult? If so, that would explain why it is looking for the view. I have created several custom controller actions to return various file types and they never look for a view.
I agree with the comments on the answer saying to return void. That definitely is a hack. You should not call ExecuteResult from inside your action. You are basically writing directly to the response stream from your controller action. Obviously it works but it really doesn't fit the MVC model.
I'm curious why it's made exactly like that?
If i call this through AJAX:
public ActionResult Foo(){
return RedirectToAction("SomethingThatReturnsPartialView","Bar");
}
It won't return me partial view in AJAX callback but will redirect to url that represents action.
So - why it is so? What are possible workarounds?
Because when the browser receives the reply from the server that is a HTTP 30x redirect, it will do just that, regardless of how the request was initiated, either synchronously or asynchronously.
On of the possible workarounds could be something like RenderViewToString, but as we know MVC lacks this feature yet. It's a known missing feature everyone wants to get.
Look in this discussion: Render a view as a string
And also look here, there may be an option to prevent the browser going redirect with JavaScript: Catching 302 FOUND in JavaScript
In ASP.NET MVC the convention is that a controller action method should return an ActionResult (or a type derived from ActionResult).
However, you can write a public method that returns pretty much anything and if that method is called (from a browser) the framework will package the return value up as a ContentResult and the browser receives a page of plain text.
This is all very interesting - but would you ever want to do this?
When you want to render something directly from your controller? e.g. using Response.Write(...); (or using other Response methods).
Not returning anything from an action method is essentially not responding to the client's HTTP request with a response.
An empty request might make sense in some cases (HTTP status being enough of a reply), but all web application patterns return something more than this (including, if I understand it correctly, REST: the new state of the entity).