This question already has answers here:
Where to convert business model to view model?
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I'm using MVC 4 with the repository pattern and unit testing also. I have a typical controller that has simple CRUD functionality. I've separated my View Models from my DTOs and I would like to know the best way to convert between the 2:
Models:
I have Admin.Models.Product which is my view model and AdminAssembly.Models.Product which is my DTO.
Controller:
//repo that handles product operations
AdminAssembly.Interfaces.IEntityRepository<AdminAssembly.Models.Product> db;
//default constructor
public ProductController() { db = new AdminAssembly.Repositories.EntityRepo<AdminAssembly.Models.Product>(new AdminAssembly.Models.EntitiesContext()); }
//unit testing constructor
public ProductController(AdminAssembly.Interfaces.IEntityRepository<AdminAssembly.Models.Product> context) { db = context; }
//
// POST: /Product/Create
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Admin.Models.Product product) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
//COMPILE-ERROR: how to convert to DTO?
db.Add(product);
}
return View();
}
//
// GET: /Product/Edit/5
public ActionResult Edit(int id) {
//COMPILE-ERROR: how to convert to view model?
Admin.Models.Product product = db.GetAll().Where(p => p.ID == id);
return View(product);
}
How do I convert between the 2?
Do I reference my DTO assembly in my view model and do something like: (won't this break my unit testing?)
//convert to AdminAssembly.Models.Product
db.Add(product.ToDTO());
//convert back to Admin.Models.Product via constructor
Admin.Models.Product product = Admin.Models.new Product(db.GetAll().Where(p => p.ID == id));
Do I need some sort of object conversion black box?
Converter.ToViewProduct(product);
Some sort of interface?
or something else?
Update 1:
public static class Product {
public static Admin.Models.Product ToView(AdminAssembly.Models.Product dto) {
Admin.Models.Product viewProduct = new Admin.Models.Product();
//straight copy
viewProduct.Property1 = dto.Property1;
viewProduct.Property2 = dto.Property2;
return viewProduct;
}
public static AdminAssembly.Models.Product ToDTO(Admin.Models.Product viewModel) {
AdminAssembly.Models.Product dtoProduct = new AdminAssembly.Models.Product();
//straight copy
dtoProduct.Property1 = viewModel.Property1;
dtoProduct.Property2 = viewModel.Property2;
//perhaps a bit of wizza-majig
dtoProduct.Property1 = viewModel.Property1 + viewModel.Property2;
return dtoProduct;
}
}
The long-hand response
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Admin.Models.Product product)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
//COMPILE-ERROR: how to convert to DTO?
var dtoProduct = new AdminAssembly.Models.Product();
dtoProduct.Property1 = product.Property1;
dtoProduct.Property2 = product.Property2;
//...and so on
db.Add(dtoProduct);
}
return View();
}
While this looks verbose and tedious (and it is) it has to happen eventually, somewhere.
You can hide this mapping either in another class or extension method, or you can use a third party like AutoMapper, as Charlino points out.
As a side note, having two classes with the same name in two different namespaces will eventually get confusing (if not for you, then for the next person who has to maintain your code.) Implement friendlier and more descriptive names wherever possible. For example, put all your view models in a folder called ViewModels, not Models. And append all your view models with ViewModel, or VM. It's also a good convention, imo, to name your view models based on the view that they are for, not so much the domain model that they will be mapped to, as not all view models will map directly to a domain model. Sometimes you'll want parts of more than one domain model, for a single view, and that will blow up your naming convention.
So in this particular case I would suggest changing Admin.Models to Admin.ViewModels and then rename the view model version of Product to CreateViewModel. Your code will be much more readable and will not be littered with namespaces throughout your methods.
All of that would result in a method that would look more like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(CreateViewModel viewModel)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var product = new Product();
product.Property1 = viewModel.Property1;
product.Property2 = viewModel.Property2;
//...and so on
db.Add(product);
}
return View();
}
Check out a library called AutoMapper.
From their wiki:
What is AutoMapper?
AutoMapper is a simple little library built to solve a deceptively complex problem - getting rid of code that mapped one object to another. This type of code is rather dreary and boring to write, so why not invent a tool to do it for us?
If you dont want to use AutoMapper you may use extensions, as suggested by #Forty-Two. If the number of things to map is no very great, I would go with this approach, just because then, AutoMapper == YAGNI
public static class Extensions
{
public static ViewModel ToViewModel(this Model )
{
var vm = new ViewModel()
{
//map
};
return vm;
}
public static Model ToModel(this ViewModel viewModel)
{
var model = new Model()
{
//map
};
return model;
}
}
Similar to your code in UPDATE, but using extensions instead.
Related
I have read that in an MVC application one should keep controllers "thin". But when I put code to fetch data in the ViewModel I feel it's less intuitive to locate, meaning when I am troubleshooting I generally tend to look in my controller first (or maybe that's my real problem). Also I find one can reuse the same VM for many different things if you pass data through the controller.
Am I violating some big principle or causing performance issues?
For example, compare these dummy snippets with two approaches, both seem to work just fine:
Assume a Repository called repositoryy with a method GetCourses() that fetches a list of Courses.
1) ViewModel fetches the data and controller directs traffic:
public CourseViewModel
{
private MyProjectEntities db = new MyProjectEntities();
Repository repository = new Repository();
{
public CourseViewModel()
{
Courses = db.Course.ToList();
}
public List<Course> Courses {get; set;}
}
}
public class CourseController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var courseviewmodel = new CourseViewModel();
return View(courseviewmodel);
}
}
2) Controller fetches data, passes to ViewModel and then to the View:
public CourseViewModel
{
public List<Course> Courses {get; set;}
}
public class CourseController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var courseviewmodel = new CourseViewModel();
courseviewmodel.Courses = repository.GetCourses.ToList();
return View(courseviewmodel);
}
}
The second option. Btw there's no 'more correct MVc approach'. There is the MVC separation and that's that. Your first option breaks that separation, because the view model does the controller's work instead of being the 'dumb' dto holding the view's data. You don't want to couple the view model to the model.
In MVVM though, the view model acts a bit like a controller, however that approach is best suited for desktop aps, not web apps.
I am using Entity framework 5 and using repository pattern. Say I got these entities Customer, Files, Images, Tasks, Invoice, User.
Each entity (apart from Customer) has a foreign key of Customer. When a user logs in I store the customerid in session (aps.net mvc). What I want is any CRUD taken on all entities to be limited to the customer who's user is logged in. e.g I can't afford to delete a Task belonging to customer 1 to be deleted by user who is from customer 2.
Is adding an argument of customerid for each method of repositories the best way to achieve this or are there any better/clever ways of doing it?
Tricky to give a definitive answer but you could make it a bit more extensible by implementing higer order functions, like this:
public interface IRepository<T>
{
public T GetBy(Expression<Func<T, bool>> query)
}
public class FileRepository : IRepository<File>
{
public File GetBy(Expression<Func<T, bool>> query)
{
using(var context = new FilesContext())
{
return context.Files.Where(query).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
}
public class SomeController
{
private IRepository<File> _repo;
public SomeController(IRepository<File> repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
var model = _repo.GetBy(f => f.CustomerId == Session.Whatever.CustomerId);
return View(model);
}
}
This way you can vary the search query when required, rather than tie yourself in to using a hardcoded customer id property. For example, if you wanted to get the File object by the FileID, not the CustomerID, then:
var model = _repo.GetBy(f => f.FileId == someId);
and that's the only part of the code that needs to change.
Some really good info on Higher Order functions and functional programming in C# here: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/375166/Functional-programming-in-Csharp
Edit:
You might be able to isolate the "Always use the customer ID when hitting DB" into a repository of it's own, using a decorator style pattern, thus: (massive disclaimer - I haven't tested this, but something along these lines should work)
public class SpecialFileRepo : IRepository<File>
{
private readonly IRepository<File> _baseRepo;
public SpecialFileRepo(IRepository<File> baseRepo)
{
_baseRepo = baseRepo;
}
public SpecialFileRepo() : this(new FileRepository())
{
}
public File GetBy(Expression<Func<File, bool>> query)
{
var parameters = query.Parameters;
var newParam = Expression.Parameter(typeof (File), "f");
var additionalQuery = Expression.AndAlso(query.Body,
Expression.Equal(
Expression.PropertyOrField(newParam, "CustomerId"),
Expression.Constant(HttpContext.Current.Session["customerId"])));
var newQuery = query.Update(additionalQuery, parameters);
return _baseRepo.GetBy(newQuery);
}
}
Then anything that's talking to a repository, as far as it's concerned, it's just a base repository, but this class is sitting in between and always grafting the "customerid = sessionwhatever" expression onto what finally gets passed to the database. And of course, anything that only cares about using the base repository, can still do so.
I want to create a repository class to separate out my data logic from my controllers. I am using a ViewModel to represent some data that will be filled with data from different tables.
Here are some questions I have:
For a method like GetAll(), do I return an IQueryable<MyViewModel> or IQueryable<Entity>? If I return viewmodels, how do I cope with a GetAll() that pulls thousands of records?
Do I create a constructor for my custom ViewModel class that takes the Entity as a parameter to do the mapping? (I'm still unfamiliar with automapper so just need an understanding on how to do this from a design point of view)
Again, my main concern is a method like GetAll() which would pull many records. If I did a foreach loop to translate each Entity into a ViewModel seems like a lot of overhead. My thought was to put a reference inside the custom ViewModel class to the IQueryable<Entity> to access from the collection, and have the ListViewModel just have indexers or something like that which reference the collection property.
1) For a method like GetAll(), do I return an IQueryable or IQueryable? If I return viewmodels, how do I cope with a GetAll() that pulls thousands of records?
IQueryable<Entity>. The repository doesn't deal with view models. Think of the repository as something that is defined in a separate class library that doesn't reference your ASP.NET MVC application which is where your view models live. It is the ASP.NET MVC application that references this library.
2) Do I create a constructor for my custom ViewModel class that takes the Entity as a parameter to do the mapping? (I'm still unfamiliar with automapper so just need an understanding on how to do this from a design point of view)
No. Don't create constructors in your view models especially if you want your controller actions to take those view models as action parameters (think of a POST action). The reason for this is that the default model binder will no longer know how to instantiate your view model and you will have to write custom model binders.
So AutoMapper or manually map.
Example with manual mapping which is what you could start with:
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
IEnumerable<Entity> entities = Repository.GetAll();
IEnumerable<MyViewModel> model = entities.Select(x => new MyViewModel
{
Prop1 = x.Prop1,
Prop2 = x.Prop2,
...
});
return View(model);
}
And once you get sick of writing this code move to AutoMapper:
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
IEnumerable<Entity> entities = Repository.GetAll();
IEnumerable<MyViewModel> model = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<Entity>, IEnumerable<MyViewModel>>(entities);
return View(model);
}
or if you write a custom action filter that uses the OnActionExecuted event to pull the domain model that was passed to the view, map it to the view model using AutoMapper and substitute the model with the view model for the view, you could further simplify the repetitive code:
[AutoMap(typeof(IEnumerable<Entity>), typeof(IEnumerable<MyViewModel>))]
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
IEnumerable<Entity> entities = Repository.GetAll();
return View(entities);
}
Again, my main concern is a method like GetAll() which would pull many
records. If I did a foreach loop to translate each Entity into a
ViewModel seems like a lot of overhead.
Don't be concerned about that. Pulling your records will be a magnitude slower than looping and mapping to the view model.
There are many different ways to do this, but to start simply, I would return an IEnumerable<T> for your GetAll() method. However, you'll probably want to implement paging in some fashion. You might want to setup a generic repository that does your basic data access for most scenarios and returns an Enumerable. You could reserve a single method that should be reserved for more complicated queries and returns an IQueryable<T>. The basic stripped down implementation might look like below.
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
internal ObjectContext _objectContext;
internal ObjectSet<T> _objectSet;
public Repository(ObjectContext objectContext)
{
_objectContext = objectContext;
_objectSet = objectContext.CreateObjectSet<T>();
}
public IQueryable<T> GetQuery()
{
return _objectSet;
}
public IEnumerable<T> GetAll()
{
return GetQuery().ToList();
}
public IEnumerable<T> Find(Func<T, bool> where)
{
return _objectSet.Where<T>(where);
}
public T Single(Func<T, bool> where)
{
return _objectSet.SingleOrDefault<T>(where);
}
public List<T> Page<TKey>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> where, int page, int pagesize, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> orderBySelector, bool ascending)
{
return ascending
? GetQuery().Where(where).OrderBy(orderBySelector).Skip((page - 1) * pagesize).Take(pagesize).ToList()
: GetQuery().Where(where).OrderByDescending(orderBySelector).Skip((page - 1) * pagesize).Take(pagesize).ToList();
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
_objectSet.DeleteObject(entity);
}
public void Add(T entity)
{
_objectSet.AddObject(entity);
}
}
And the Interface would look like
public interface IRepository<T> where T : class
{
IQueryable<T> GetQuery();
IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
IEnumerable<T> Find(Func<T, bool> where);
T Single(Func<T, bool> where);
List<T> Page<TKey>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> where, int page, int pagesize, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> orderBySelector, bool ascending);
void Delete(T entity);
void Add(T entity);
}
The above can function as the beginning of a simple generic repository. Once you have your entities, you don't need AutoMapper, it just makes life easier as many ViewModels have the same properties as your entities. You can simply define a new ViewModel or List of ViewModels and map the properties on your own.
List<ViewModel> vm = new List<ViewModel>();
foreach (var e in entities)
{
ViewModel v = new ViewModel();
v.something = e.something;
// perform the rest
vm.Add(v);
}
*That was quite a bit to type, sorry about any typos :)
I think you may have a misunderstanding of the view model and it's purpose. You don't need to create a view model for every entity in your database, as it seems you want to do; you just create a view model for each view you want to render. Hence the term "view model"--it organizes the data in the form of a model that your view can be strongly typed to.
You wouldn't, for example, want to create a separate view model for every entity returned by a GetAll(). In a simple scenario of displaying a gridview of all records you would probably just need a single viewmodel with one property:
public class MyViewModel
{
public List<MyRecord> AllRecords {get;set;}
}
You would populate this view model in the controller
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
var viewmodel = new MyViewModel{AllRecords = GetAll()};
return View(viewModel);
}
Have a look at this blog post by Rachael Appel for a really concise discussion.
I've been trying to find a good way to handle the Models of our Asp.net MVC websites when having common properties for all the pages. These properties are to be displayed in the Layout (Master Page). I'm using a "BaseModel" class that holds those properties and my Layout use this BaseModel as its model.
Every other model inherits from that BaseModel and each has specific properties relative to the view it represents. As you might have guessed, my Models are actually View Models even if that's not quite relevant here.
I have tried different ways to initialize the BaseModel values
By "hand" in every view
Having a base controller that has an Initialize virtual method to do it (so specific controller can implement specific common behavior for exemple)
Having a base controlelr that override OnActionExecuting to call the Initialize method
Using a helper class to do it outside of the controller
Using a Model Factory
But none of those really appeal to me:
Seems obvious to me, but DRY is one reason enough to justify that (actually I never tried that solution at all, I'm just putting it to be able to loop on that point in the last point).
I don't like that one because it means that whenever a new Controller is added, you need to know that it has to inherit from the BaseController and that you need to call the Initialize method, not to mention that if your controller has overriden the base one, to call the base anyway to maintain the values.
see next point
and 3. are a variation on the same topic but that doesn't really help with the issues of the second solution.
My favorite so far, but now I have to pass a few more variables to set those values. I like it for the inversion of dependence. But then if I want to provide values from the session, I need to pass them explicitly for exemple, then I'm back to square one as I have to provide them by hand (being references or through an interface of any kind)
Of course, (almost) all of those solutions work, but I'm looking for a better way to do it.
While typing this question, I found maybe a new path, the builder pattern that might also do, but implementations can become quickly a burden too, as we can have dozens of views and controllers.
I'll gladly take any serious recommandation/hint/advice/patterns/suggestion !
Update
Thanks to #EBarr I came up with another solution, using an ActionFilterAttribute (not production code, did it in 5 minutes):
public class ModelAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public Type ModelType { get; private set; }
public ModelAttribute(string typeName) : this(Type.GetType(typeName)) { }
public ModelAttribute(Type modelType)
{
if(modelType == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("modelType"); }
ModelType = modelType;
if (!typeof(BaseModel).IsAssignableFrom(ModelType))
{
throw new ArgumentException("model type should inherit BaseModel");
}
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var model = ModelFactory.GetModel(ModelType);
var foo = filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Session["foo"] as Foo;
model.Foo = foo;
model.Bar = somevalue;
filterContext.Controller.TempData["model"] = model;
}
}
Calling it is then really simple:
[Model(typeof(HomeModel))]
public ActionResult Index()
{
var homeModel = TempData["model"] as HomeModel;
// Add View Specific stuff
return View(homeModel);
}
And it gives me the best of every world. The only drawback is to find a proper way to passe the model back to the action.
Here it's done using the TempData object, but I also consider updating the model that one can find in the ActionParameters.
I'm still taking any serious recommandation/hint/advice/patterns/suggestion for that, or the previous points.
I went through almost exactly the same process as I dove into MVC. And you're right, none of the solutions feel that great.
In the end I used a series of base models. For various reasons I had a few different types of base models, but the logic should apply to a single base type. The majority of my view models then inherited from one of the bases. Then, depending on need/timing i fill the base portion of the model in ActionExecuting or OnActionExecuted.
A snippet of my code that should make the process clear:
if (filterContext.ActionParameters.ContainsKey("model")) {
var tempModel = (System.Object)filterContext.ActionParameters["model"];
if (typeof(BaseModel_SuperLight).IsAssignableFrom(tempModel.GetType())) {
//do stuff required by light weight model
}
if (typeof(BaseModel_RegularWeight).IsAssignableFrom(tempModel.GetType())) {
//do more costly stuff for regular weight model here
}
}
In the end my pattern didn't feel too satisfying. It was, however, practical, flexible and easy to implement varying levels of inheritance. I was also able to inject pre or post controller execution, which mattered a lot in my case. Hope this helps.
The idea that gave me #EBarr to use an action filter was actually working but felt wrong in the end, because there was no clean way to retrieve the model without passing through a viewbag, or the httpcontext items, or something alike. Also, it made mandatory to decorate every action with its model. It also made the postback more difficult to handle. I still believe that this solution has merits and might be useful in some specific scenarios.
So I was back to square one and started looking more into that topic. I came to the following. First the problem has two aspects
Initializing the data for the views
Rendering the data
While looking for more idea, I realized that I was not looking at the problem from the right perspective. I was looking at it from a "Controller" POV, whereas the final client for the model is the view. I was also reminded that the Layout/Master page is not a view and should not have a model associated with it. That insight put me on what feels the right path for me. Because it meant that every "dynamic" part of the Layout should be handled outside of it. Of course, sections seems the perfect fit for that, because of their flexibility.
On the test solution I made, I had (only) 4 different sections, some mandatory, some not. The problem with sections, is that you need to add them on every page, which can quickly be a pain to update/modify. To solve that, I tried this:
public interface IViewModel
{
KeyValuePair<string, PartialViewData>[] Sections { get; }
}
public class PartialViewData
{
public string PartialViewName { get; set; }
public object PartialViewModel { get; set; }
public ViewDataDictionary ViewData { get; set; }
}
For exemple, my model for the view is this:
public class HomeViewModel : IViewModel
{
public Article[] Articles { get; set; } // Article is just a dummy class
public string QuickContactMessage { get; set; } // just here to try things
public HomeViewModel() { Articles = new Article[0]; }
private Dictionary<string, PartialViewData> _Sections = new Dictionary<string, PartialViewData>();
public KeyValuePair<string, PartialViewData>[] Sections
{
get { return _Sections.ToArray(); }
set { _Sections = value.ToDictionary(item => item.Key, item => item.Value); }
}
}
This get initialized in the action:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var hvm = ModelFactory.Get<HomeViewModel>(); // Does not much, basicaly a new HomeViewModel();
hvm.Sections = LayoutHelper.GetCommonSections().ToArray(); // more on this just after
hvm.Articles = ArticlesProvider.GetArticles(); // ArticlesProvider could support DI
return View(hvm);
}
LayoutHelper is a property on the controller (which could be DI'ed if needed):
public class DefaultLayoutHelper
{
private Controller Controller;
public DefaultLayoutHelper(Controller controller) { Controller = controller; }
public Dictionary<string, PartialViewData> GetCommonSections(QuickContactModel quickContactModel = null)
{
var sections = new Dictionary<string, PartialViewData>();
// those calls were made in methods in the solution, I removed it to reduce the length of the answer
sections.Add("header",
Controller.UserLoggedIn() // simple extension that check if there is a user logged in
? new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "HeaderLoggedIn", PartialViewModel = new HeaderLoggedInViewModel { Username = "Bishop" } }
: new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "HeaderNotLoggedIn", PartialViewModel = new HeaderLoggedOutViewModel() });
sections.Add("quotes", new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "Quotes" });
sections.Add("quickcontact", new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "QuickContactForm", PartialViewModel = model ?? new QuickContactModel() });
return sections;
}
}
And in the views (.cshtml):
#section quotes { #{ Html.RenderPartial(Model.Sections.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Key == "quotes").Value); } }
#section login { #{ Html.RenderPartial(Model.Sections.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Key == "header").Value); } }
#section footer { #{ Html.RenderPartial(Model.Sections.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Key == "footer").Value); } }
The actual solution has more code, I tried to simplify to just get the idea here. It's still a bit raw and need polishing/error handling, but with that I can define in my action, what the sections will be, what model they will use and so on. It can be easily tested and setting up DI should not be an issue.
I still have to duplicate the #section lines in every view, which seems a bit painful (especialy because we can't put the sections in a partial view).
I'm looking into the templated razor delegates to see if that could not replace the sections.
My understanding is that ASP.NET MVC only allows you to POST objects to Actions in the Controller, where the Action's arguments accept the posted object as a Concrete class.
Is there any way around this, or a good alternative?
In my case, I have an action which accepts an interface as an argument:
public ActionResult SaveAdjustment(IModel model)
{
switch (model.SubsetType)
{
// factory like usage
}
}
And for this action, I have numerous views, all strongly typed to objects that implement IModel, all which I want to be able to post to this one method.
Of course, running this give me the error:
Cannot create an instance of an interface
Is there a nice work around to this? Or do I need to create an Action method for each and send them over to a method like this?
MVC generally binds models when posting from Request.Form, that is collection of name=value pairs. The reason that in default implementation there's no support of binding interfaces or abstract classes is obvious - mvc cannot determine which concrete class to create from name=value pairs. If you got hidden field on client side, or any other parameter anywhere by which you are able to determine which type of concrete class to create, you can simply create custom model binder. I believe you can override DefaultModelBinder's CreateModel method and reuse all other built in binding functionality
public class IModelModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, System.Type modelType)
{
//Create and return concrete instance
}
}
And model binder registration in global.asax
ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(IModel?), new IModelModelBinder());
Actually, controllers and actions in mvc are meant to be thin, and some kind of service layer should be thick. As action logic you are trying to implement may get complicated soon, I would recommend moving it into separate service.
Although I mentioned this as a possible solution in my original question, its the solution I have gone with in the end and I actually quite like it now. This way I didn't need to touch the model default binding implementation and I think this approach is a more readable/understandable approach than what I was originally asking for.
In case its not clear why I wanted to go for this approach, I have added an example of how I can use this for its OO benifits.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult SaveModelA(ModelA model)
{
return SaveModel(model);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult SaveModelB(ModelB model)
{
return SaveModel(model);
}
private ActionResult SaveModel(IModel model)
{
IExampleService exampleService;
IRequirements requirements;
switch (model.SubsetType)
{
case SubsetType.ModelA:
myService = new ModelAService();
requirements = new ModelARequirements
{
ModelASpecificProperty = "example"
};
break;
case SubsetType.ModelB:
myService = new ModelBService();
requirements = new ModelBRequirements
{
ModelBSpecificProperty1 = "example",
ModelBSpecificProperty2 = "example2",
ModelBSpecificProperty3 = "example3"
};
break;
default:
throw new InvalidEnumArgumentException();
}
var serviceResonse = exampleService.ExecuteExample(model, requirements);
return RedirectToAction("Index", new
{
ExampleData = serviceResponse.ExampleDate
});
}
In case it isn't clear in the code:
ModelA : IModel
ModelB : IModel
ModelARequirements : IModelRequirements
ModelBRequirements : IModelRequirements
ModelAService : IExampleService
ModelBService : IExampleService
// and IModel defines a property SubsetType SubsetType { get; }