I am extracting some code from a project outside of the MVC-area to a HttpHandler while reusing as much code as possible.
To make things easy I would like to convert the posted data to the same Model that was already used in the Controller.
So, now I am looking for the logic MVC is using under the covers to magically convert posted data to a Model, but after several decompile attempts I am unable to find this.
Could anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks!
SaphuA: Basically, I want to input the HttpContext and the type of the target Model and have the helper method do the rest of the mapping.
As Eric says, just extent the DefaultModelBinder.cs
The default model binder is here
The model binder is called from the controller action invoker
The overall flow is nicely outlined here so just scroll to check where the controller action invoker is called.
If you want to spin up some unit tests around your implementation of the binder, check out the MVC source tests
Using the github mirror because codeplex does not support line number linking yet :-)
HTH
I think this article explains it pretty well.
In a nutshell there is a DefaultModelBinder class that handles the conversion of POST data into a model object. You can even replace that model binder with your own if you like by extending it or implementing IModelBinder then registering your model binder with MVC in your Application_Start method.
Related
I like to have static helper classes in my apps for common plumbing stuff, like checking roles, or Razor Html helpers and stuff... but how do you do this in the DI world?
Like lets say I want an extension helper to check if a user is an admin
public static async Task<bool> IsAdmin(this ApplicationUser user)
...
if(user.IsAdmin()){...}
So pre-core I could just ignore DI and create a UserManager all inside IsAdmin do whatever I need to do. But now is there no way to get the UserManager in these helpers to just use? The only way I can see is to inject it into the Controller, then pass along into the method (which I find ugly). Then there's the issue of trying to do user.IsAdmin() in the Razor view, would I need to add the UserManager to the ViewData collection to get it into the view markup?
Am I just missing something here?
Thanks,
Steve
First of all if you just asked how to use static class with di, i would say that your question is duplicate of How to use DI inside a static Method in Asp.net Core rc1
But as i see, you have some other question?
But now is there no way to get the UserManager in these helpers to
just use?
Yes there is a way : Service Locator pattern. But it is an anti pattern (see this article) . As far as possible you should avoid to use this pattern. Also see discussion in github.
The only way I can see is to inject it into the Controller, then pass
along into the method (which I find ugly)
I think this way is better than you want. I would prefer this.
Then there's the issue of trying to do user.IsAdmin() in the Razor
view, would I need to add the UserManager to the ViewData collection
to get it into the view markup?
In Aspnet core you can inject a dependency into a view, so you don't need to use ViewData. Simply you can inject UserManager into your view and then pass it as parameter to method. Take a look at official docs
Well you are talking about a cross-cutting concern here and one way how I've seen cross cutting concerns solved in ASP.NET Core MVC is with attributes (like [Authorize] for example). Which I think is an elegant solution.
So, if I understand your question correctly I think you can solve this with an Action Filter. Damien Bod described a few days ago how to use ActionFilters: https://damienbod.com/2016/09/09/asp-net-core-action-arguments-validation-using-an-actionfilter/.
So in short, you inherit from ActionFilterAttribute and make your own curstom filter called MyCustomFilter or whatever. Have this MyCustomFilter request UserManager in its constructor via DI. Then above any action method in a controller you say:
ServiceFilter[typeof(MyCustomFilter)]
And in MyCustomFilter you ofcourse have logic to check if User is IsAdmin and then take action accordingly.
Now, I've always used Microsoft's Unity to handle cross cutting concerns via interception (you can read more about that here: https://dannyvanderkraan.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/real-world-example-of-adding-auditing-with-dependency-injections-interception/. But last time I checked there is no Unity container for asp.net core yet. But this guy has a great article about porting it to core: https://dzimchuk.net/post/bring-your-own-di-container-to-aspnet-5-unity. I would really like my Interception back! Very elegant solution to cross cutting concerns. They are working on it though: https://github.com/unitycontainer/unity/issues/66. Fingers crossed...
Just some idea to make more use of custom model binder. I am currently still using IMapper interface to do so, though wondering whether part of the purpose of custom binder is to mapping view model or input model to business entity? I can see there might be some limitations if i use MVC custom binder. What is the advantage to use the custom binder in MVC? Will my app gain better performance?
Short answer would be No, you should not
ModelBinder by itself is part of ASP.NET MVC infrastructure. If you would take a look at ASP.NET MVC pipline (PDF) you would see that it's job is
to convert a posted web form data (a string basically) or query string from URL to an instance of particular class.
ASP.NET MVC framework has a DefaultModelBinder that
is suitable for 99% of cases. Custom model binders could be used in situations where standard data conversion fails e.g. mapping $ 1,234.56 from a textbox to a decimal value of 1234.56
Moreover ModelBinder implements IModelBinder interface with a single BindModel() method. This method expects parameters that would be hard to 'hand-craft' to make any use of them and are totally not relevant to your scenario.
What you are realy looking for is
- either custom object mapping between viewmodels and business objects where you manually assign one object property values to another
- or taking advantage of libs/frameworks such as Automapper or ValueInjecter which take care of object mapping hassle away from you
- or a mix of both
I am writing an area for administering several subsites, almost all of the functionality will be the same across each site (add/edit/remove pages etc) and my repository on instantiation takes the SiteIdentity so all the data access methods are agnostic in relation to this. The problem I have at the moment is trying to make my action methods also agnostic.
The URL pattern I want to use is along the lines of:
"ExternalSite/{identity}/{controller}/{action}/{id}"
A naive approach is to have each action take the identity parameter, but this means having to pass this in to my repository on each action as well as include it in the ViewData for a couple of UI elements. I'd much rather have this something that happens once in the controller, such as in its constructor.
What is the best way to do this? Currently the best I can come up with is trying to find and cast identity from the RouteData dictionary but part of me feels like there should be a more elegant solution.
It sounds like you want to use OnActionExecuting or a Custom ModelBinder to do that logic each time you have a specific parameter name (also known as a RouteData dictionary key).
Creating a custom modelbinder in ASP.NET MVC
Creating an OnActionExecuting method in ASP.NET MVC, Doing Serverside tracking in ASP.NET MVC
You have access to your route values in Request.RequestContext.RouteData, so you can make base controller and public property SiteIdentity, in such case you can access it from all actions in all inherited controllers.
Say I have an object that gets some data from HttpPost and some from the database. I think I want to allow the ModelBinder to go to the database/repository for the that data missing from the post. In practice, is this a good or bad idea?
I've decided to edit my original answer given my thinking on these types of things has evolved since early 2010.
In my original answer, I basically expressed that, while my instincts told me you shouldn't do this, I was uncomfortable saying we shouldn't without being able to articulate why.
Now, I'd recommend against this on the grounds that the responsibility of a Model Binder is to translate a user request into a Request Model and that retrieving data outside of what can be derived from the request goes beyond this scope of responsibility.
I would say a bad idea. The idea of the model binder is that it takes the parameters from the request and creates your model from those. If your model binder, behind the scenes, fills in some of the details from the database this breaks the paradigm. I'd much rather expose the database call in my controller by explicitly fetching the required extra data from the database directly. Note that this could be refactored into a method if used frequently.
I think this is perfectly fine and use this technique all the time.
The only arguments against are very pedantic and amount to arguing over philosophy. IMHO you can put "fill in missing posted data" code into you MVC app as a method in your base controller vs. method in you ActionFilter vs method in you ModelBinder. It all depends on who get what responsibility. To me the model binder can do a lot more than simply wire up some properties from posted values.
The reason I love doing database calls in my modelbinder is because it helps clean up your action methods.
//logic not in modelbinder
public ActionResult Edit( KittyCat cat )
{
DoSomeOrthagonalDatabaseCall( cat );
return View( new MODEL() );
}
vs.
//logic in model binder
public ActionResult Add( KittyCat cat )
{
return View( new MODEL() );
}
It violates the way MVC is supposed to work. ModelBinder is for binging Models from the data that comes from the view. Populating missing info from the database is something that is supposed to be handled by the controller. Ideally, it would have same data layer/repository class that it uses to do this.
The reason it should be in the controller is because this code is business logic. The business rules dictate that some data may be missing and thus it must be handled by the brains of the operation, the controller.
Take it a step further, say you want to log in the DB what info the user isn't posting, or catch an exception when getting the missing data and email admins about it. You have to put these in your model binder this way and it gets more and more ugly with the ModelBinder becoming more and more warped from its original purpose.
Basically you want everything but the controller to be as dumb and as specialized as possible, only knowing out how to carry out its specific area of expertise which is purely to assist the controller.
I would say, no.
Here's why: It would create a dependency on your database for testing your controller actions that would not be easy to abstract out.
I would say it is ok. The argument that creates dependency to database is a false argument for 2 reasons:
1- Database access should be abstracted via repository interfaces. Repository interfaces are part of the domain model and their implementation is part of the infrastructure/data access layer. So there is no dependency to the database.
2- Model Binders and Controllers are both part of presentation layer implemented using ASP.NET MVC Framework. If Controllers are allowed to access database using repository interfaces, how come Model Binders are not allowed?
Also, there are situations that you'd "better" fill the missing data in your model from Model Binders. Consider the scenario where you have a drop-down list on your view. The first time the view is loaded, the drop-down list is populated. The user submits the form but the validation fails. So you'll need to return the form again. At this stage, you'll have to re-populate the list in the Model for the drop-down list. Doing this in Controller looks ugly:
public ActionResult Save(DocumentViewModel viewModel)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
viewModel.Categories = _repository.GetAll();
return View(viewModel);
}
}
I believe the initialization of Categories here is ugly and like a code smell. What if you had a few properties that needed to be filled out from database? What if you had more than 1 action that had DocumentViewModel as an argument? You'd have to repeat this ugly step over and over. A better approach is to fill all the properties of the model using the Model Binder and pass it to the Controller. So the object that is passed to the controller is in a "consistent" state.
I want to test a mvc controller. I'm using Moq to mock the services, but I don't know how to mock this.Request.Files["Attachement1"] and this.Server.MapPath("~/Temp") ("this" is the controller)
I tried to create a new Mock<HttpRequestBase>(); but this.Request doesn't have a setter.
Help me please with an advise. Thanks
I had a similar problem as your - I used the set of fake classes from Stephen Walther's blog.
Asp.Net MVC Tips - Faking the Controller Context
I had to modify some of the classes slightly but it should do what you want and it's definitely a lot easier to setup than having to mock the entire context every time.
For the folder name resolutions such as: this.Server.MapPath("~/Temp") I use public properties, and getter returns this so I can easily test it.
For the Request.Files, I prefer using FormCollection dictionary
If you have a look at the TestHelper in the MVCContrib project, it can easily be extended to Mock other bits of the Http elements. (It has some Request elements already to use as a template.)
Kindness,
Dan