If I have a model that looks something like this:
public class LoginModel
{
pulbic List<string> UserNames {get; set; }
public string SelectedUserName {get; set; }
public string Password {get; set; }
}
And I also have a controller with a couple of action methods that look something like this:
public ActionResult Login()
{
LoginModel model = null;
model = new LoginModel();
// Code to populate the UserNames property of the LoginModel instance (model)...
return View(model);
}
[HttpPost()]
public ActionResult Login(LoginModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid == true)
{
return RedirectToAction("SomeOtherAction")
}
else
{
return View(model);
}
}
I will need to re-populate the UserNames property of the model object before passing it to the View method. This is something that I can certainly do but it does feel a bit dirty. That leads me to the question. Is there a better way to handle this?
This is something that I can certainly do but it does feel a bit dirty.
It's not dirty. It's how MVC works -> it's stateless. As an alternative you could include the list of usernames as hidden fields into the form so that they get POSTed back to the controller. But this is not an information you could rely upon because the user could modify those values. So if you need to trust those values you'd better query your backend for them.
As I have come to understand MVC are that you should have a method in the model update the UserNames property. All (and nothing more in this matter) your controller should do is to pass the necessary arguments to this function. In that way, your controller is just passing the information which only it can know to the model where the logic should go.
I don't know any asp.net so I can sadly not provide you with a code example.
Essentially this depends on what your view is actually doing. Certainly if you render your UserNames collection as a list of hidden form fields Model binding could do this for you upon http post. That said this is how http programming is intended to work. State is not intended to stick around between gets and posts.
Really your choices are to rebuild that list on as you mentioned or render out some hidden fields (I would not recommend that) and have model binding do its thing.
Usually I have a class for a particular model(and closely related entities) that handles database access and populating view models(although you can add even another layer in so that DB access and mapping to view models is separate, perhaps leveraging a mapping framework). Either way, it would have a method like GetLogins that you could call anywhere that needs a list like that, perhaps even other controllers like Friends page that needs to list login names that someone can request friends from, a contrived example but you get the idea.
Since both your Get and POST methods need to re-display the page(POST in the case of an error), both of them can call GetLogins so that you don't repeat that DB access code in both places.
Related
I have two models: Reptile and Species. A Reptile has a Species, stored as an ID in the database:
How should I set up the details controller action/view for Reptile so that it displays the Title property of the Species instead of the ID that the Reptile uses?
My initial thought was just to grab the data in the controller and pass it in the ViewBag, but this seems inappropriate, and overly complex when it's time to setup the list action.
What's the proper way to do this?
It seems like I need to make a view model, but what confuses me is how to properly design it so that there aren't too many database calls.
Here is my initial attempt at a ViewModel:
public class ReptileDetailsModel
{
[Required]
public String Species { get; set; }
//etc...
public ReptileDetailsModel(Reptile reptile)
{
this.Species = reptile.Species.Title;
// etc...
}
}
Another way to achieve the same thing in more generic way is to use AutoMapper
Few advantages I can think of:
Automatically map exact properties (you only need specify anything that is exception to the rule)
Centralized in one class / method, whatever
Ability to ignore, map to another classes properties, even custom logic
Non intrusive, it is up to you how / when you want to use it.
In your particular instance I would create a mapper something like
Mapper.CreateMap<Reptile, ReptileDetailsModel>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Species,
options => options.MapFrom(source => source.Species.Title));
This mapper info need to be registered somewhere. In MVC projects I have been involved, I would register a mapper into global.asax.
Then in your controller, you would want to invoke the mapper to map your reptile instance to your model
ReptileDetailsModel model = Mapper.Map<ReptileDetailsModel>(reptile);
There are many ways to use the AutoMapper within MVC, but this is probably a start.
I didn't realize it at the time, but I was using:
public ActionResult Index()
{
using (var db = new ModelsContainer())
{
return View(db.Reptiles.ToList());
}
}
This was causing the database (and thus model property) to expire before the view was rendered, causing this error (adding for search engines):
The ObjectContext instance has been disposed and can no longer be used for operations that require a connection.
Set the Species class as a model for your strongly typed Reptile View. Then display the Title property of it. Your action method should look like this:
public ActionResult Reptile(Reptile rep)
{
return View(db.Species.Where(x=>x.ID == rep.SpeciesID).Single());
}
this way you would only need to call database once in order to generate the view.
I have a view model like this:
public class EditVM
{
public Media.Domain.Entities.Movie Movie { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Genre> Genres { get; set; }
}
Movie is the real entity I wish to edit. Genres is simply present to populate a drop down. I would prefer that when I call:
#Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Movie.Title)
inside my strongly typed view that the input control have a name = "Title" instead of "Movie.Title"
I do not wish to split my view into partial views or lose my strongly typed view by using ViewData or the like.
Is there a way to express to the View that I do not wish to have the Movie. prefix? I noticed that you can set:
ViewData.TemplateInfo.HtmlFieldPrefix = "x";
in the controller, but unfortunately it seems only to allow adding an additional prefix. Setting it to "" does nothing.
Is there any work around for this? Or am I stuck with the unfortunate prefix that isn't really necessary in this case if I wish to keep strongly typed views and lambdas?
Thanks for any help.
Update:
Here's the controller actions to maybe make things a bit clearer.
public ActionResult Edit(int? id)
{
var vm = new EditVM
{
Movie = id.HasValue ? _movieSvc.Find(id.Value) : new Movie(),
Genres = AppData.ListGenres()
};
return View(vm);
}
[HttpPost]
public void Edit([Bind(Prefix = "Movie")]Movie m)
{
_movieSvc.AddOrUpdateMovie(m); //Exceptions handled elsewhere
}
No, in order to do what you want you would have to rewrite the Html helpers, and then you would have to write your own model binder. Seems like a lot of work for minimal gain.
The only choice is a Partial view in which you pass the Movie object as the model. However, this would require you to write your own model binder to have it be recognized.
The reason you have to do m.Movie.Title is so that the ID has the correct name, so the model binder can recognize it as a member of your model.
Based on your update:
Your options are:
Use non-strongly typed helpers.
Use a partial view.
Rewrite the stronly typed helpers
Don't use the helpers at all, and write the values to the HTML
Personally, i'd just use 1 or 2, probably 2.
EDIT:
Based on your update above. Change your code to this (note, Genres does not get posted back to the server, so m.Genres will just be null on postback):
[HttpPost]
public void Edit(EditVM m)
{
_movieSvc.AddOrUpdateMovie(m.Movie); //Exceptions handled elsewhere
}
EDIT:
I did just think of an alternative to this. You could simply do this:
#{ var Movie = Model.Movie; }
#Html.TextBoxFor(m => Movie.Title)
However, if there was a validation error, you would have to recreate your EditVM.
I have a view model like this
I think that you might have some misunderstanding about what a view model is. A view model shouldn't contain any reference to your domain models which is what those Movie and Genre classes seem to be. I mean creating a new class that you suffix with VM and in which you stuff all your domain models as properties is not really a view model. A view model is a class that is specifically designed to meet the requirements of your view.
A much more correct view model would looks like this:
public class EditVM
{
public string MovieTitle { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<GenreViewModel> Genres { get; set; }
}
and in your view you would have:
#Html.EditorFor(x => x.MovieTitle)
#Html.EditorFor(x => x.Genres)
Another option is to either use the TextBox(string name, object value) overload instead of the TextBoxFor:
#Html.TextBox("Title", Model.Movie.Title)
You could also specify the input tag HTML instead of using a helper.
Another option is to take EditVM as your postback parameter. This is what I would do. My post action parameter is always the same type of the .cshtml model. Yes there will be properties like lists that are null, but you just ignore those. It also allows you to gracefully handle post errors as well because if there is an error you'll need to return an instance of that view model anyhow, and have the values they submitted included. I usually have private methods or DB layer that handles retrieving the various lists that go into the ViewModel, since those will be empty on postback and will need to be repopulated, while not touching the properties that were in the post.
With your post method as it is now, if you need to return the same view, you've gotta create a new EditVM and then copy any posted values into it, and still populate the lists. With my method, you eliminate one of those mapping steps. If you are posting more than one thing, are you going to have umpteen different parameters on your post action? Just let them all come naturally into a single parameter typed to the EditVM of the View. While maybe having those null properties in the VM during the postback feels icky, you get a nice predictable consistency between View and postback IMO. You don't have to spend alot of time thinking about what combination of parameters on your post method will get you all the pieces of data from the form.
Suppose I want to allow to select our entity (from a dropdown, etc) on a page, let's say Product. As a result I may receive this:
public ActionResult SelectedAction(Guid productId)
{
}
But, I want to use model binders power, so instead I write model binder to get my product from repository and instead use
public ActionResult SelectedAction(Product product)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid) {} else {}
}
My model binder will set model state to false if product is invalid.
Now, there're problems with this approach:
It's not always easy to use strongly-typed methods like Html.ActionLink(c => c.SelectedAction(id)) since we need to pass Product, not id.
It's not good to use entities as controller parameters, anyway.
If model state is invalid, and I want to redirect back and show error, I can't preserve selected product! Because bound product is not set and my id is not there. I'd like to do RedirectToAction(c => c.Redisplay(product)) but of course this is not possible.
Now, seems like I'm back to use "Guid productId" as parameter... However, there's one solution that I'd like to present and discuss.
public class EntityViewModel<T> where T : BaseEntity
{
public EntityViewModel(Guid id)
{
this.Id = id;
}
public static implicit operator EntityViewModel<T>(T entity)
{
return new EntityViewModel<T>(entity.Id);
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Id.ToString();
}
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public T Instance { get; set; }
}
Now, if I use
public ActionResult SelectedAction(EntityViewModel<Product> product)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid) {} else {}
}
all the problems are solved:
I can pass EntityViewModel with only Id set if I have only Id.
I don't use entity as parameter. Moreover, I
can use EntityViewModel as property inside another ViewModel.
I can pass EntityViewModel back to RedirectToController and it will keep its Id value, which will be
redisplayed to user along with the validation messages (thanks to MVCContrib and ModelStateToTempData / PassParametersDuringRedirect).
The model binder will get Instance from the repository and will set model state errors like "Not found in database" and so on. And I can use things like ActionLink(c => c.Action(Model.MyProductViewModelProperty)).
The question is, are there any drawbacks here? I can't see anything bad but I'm still new to MVC and may miss some important things. Maybe there're better and approved ways? Maybe this is why everybody uses entity IDs as input parameters and properties?
Overall that looks like a good appoach to me...
As an alternative, you could use POCO for your viewmodel then I think all 3 problems would be solved automatically. Have you seen the Automapper project that allows an Entity to DTO approach? This would give you more flexibility by separating you ViewModel from your EntityModel, but really depends on the complexity of you application you are building.
MVC's ViewDataExtensions might also be useful instead of creating custom containers to hold various viewmodel objects as you mention in number 2.
MVCContrib's ModelStateToTempData should work for any serializable object (must be serializable for any out of process sessionstate providers eg. SQL, Velocity etc.), so you could use that even without wrapping your entity classes couldn't you?
Currently I'm passing my domain objects to my views, and binding directly to them from POSTs. Everyone says this is bad, so I'm attempting to add in the ViewModel concept.
However, I can't find a way to do this very elegantly, and I'd like to know what other people's solutions are to not ending up with a very messy controller action.
the typical process for say some "add person" functionality looks like this:
make a GET request for a view representing a blank Person viewmodel
post back (in)valid data
controller binds posted data onto a person viewmodel
if binding fails, i need to do the same action as in (1) but with some data, not a blank object and errors
if the binding suceeded, i need to map the properties from the VM onto a real model
validate the model
if validation passed: save the person, commit, map the users details to a display VM and return it in a view
if validation failed, do the same actions as in (1) but with some data and errors
Doing all this in a controller action (ignoring the GET) certainly isnt SRP or DRY.
Im trying to think of a way of breaking this process up so that it does abide by SRP, is clean, modular and above all testable.
What are peoples solution to this?
I've been experimenting with custom controller-action-invokers to separate the concerns up into individual methods, smart modelbinders and just plain brute force but i havent yet come across a solution in happy with.
P.S. as it adds so much complexity, convince me why i even need to bother
I've felt the same discomfort. My only way around it has been to do the following:
Create a binder to bind and validate the view model
Create a binder to get the entity from the database (or just do this in the controller)
Call an inherited Save method in the superclass. This method takes the viewmodel and the entity that will be updated, and does all the work you listed in your steps.
The action method looks like this:
public ActionResult Whatever(TViewModel viewModel, TEntity entity)
{
return Save(viewModel, entity);
}
The base controller has a generic definition, like so:
public abstract BaseController<TEntity, TViewModel>
where TEntity : Entity
where TViewModel : ViewModel
The constructor has two dependencies, one for the entity repository and another for the model mapper, like so:
protected BaseController(IRepository<TEntity> repository, IMapper<TEntity, TViewModel> mapper)
With this in place, you can then write a protected Save method that can be called from the controller actions in the subclass, like so:
protected ActionResult Save(TViewModel viewModel, TEntity entity)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return View(viewModel);
_mapper.Map(viewModel, entity);
if (!entity.IsValid)
{
// add errors to model state
return View(viewModel);
}
try
{
_repository.Save(entity);
// either redirect with static url or add virtual method for defining redirect in subclass.
}
catch (Exception)
{
// do something here with the exception
return View(viewModel);
}
}
As far as testability, you can test the save method passing in valid/invalid view models and entities. You can test the implementation of the model mapper, the valid state of the view model, and the valid state of the entity separately.
By making the base controller generic, you can repeat this pattern for each entity/viewmodel combo in your domain, if you're creating many controllers to do the same thing.
I'm very interested to hear what others have to say about this. Great question.
The MVVM (ViewModel) pattern is definitely the one to go for, I had a similar question about POSTing back to an action a few days back - here is the link: MVVM and ModelBinders in the ASP.NET MVC Framework
The result was that you can use the Bind attribute to post back the complex type you want.
I have many good solutions in the asp.net mvc sample application which is in the download of valueinjecter (mapper that I use to map ViewModels to/from Entities, you can also map FormCollection/Request to Entities)
here's one:
public class TinyController :Controller
{
private readonly IModelBuilder<Person, PersonViewModel> modelBuilder;
public TinyController()
{
modelBuilder = new PersonModelBuilder();
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View(modelBuilder.BuildModel(new PersonRepository().Get()));
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(PersonViewModel model)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return View(modelBuilder.RebuildModel(model));
var entity = modelBuilder.BuildEntity(model);
...
//save it or whatever
}
}
Related: What’s the best way to implement field validation using ASP.NET MVC?
Let's suppose a solution with the following projects:
Foo; // the MVC web project
Foo.Models;
Foo.Repositories;
Foo.Services;
Foo.Models is the domain of the application with all the entities, doesn't matter if using EF, NH, POCO or whatever. Here's an example:
public class User
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
In Foo.Repositories there is a UserRepository and in Foo.Services there is a UserService.
In the web application let's consider a model binder like following:
public class UserBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
//...
}
I see three different options on where to put the validation:
In Foo.Models like the following:
public class User
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
public ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>> ValidateErrors()
{
//Validate if Username, Email and Password has been passed
}
}
In Foo.Services like:
public class UserService
{
public ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>> ValidateErrors()
{
//Validate if Username, Email and Password has been passed
}
}
In Foo inside the model binder:
public class UserBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override void OnModelUpdated(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
var user = (User)bindingContext.Model;
// validate everything here
base.OnModelUpdated(controllerContext, bindingContext);
}
}
Another thing to notice is that considering the first 2 options [Model and Service] there is another decision to make: ValidateErrors method can be called directly on the controller or inside the Binder.
I have 2 questions on the scenario:
Should the validation be:
In the Model being called from the controller?
In the Model being called from the binder?
In the Service being called from the controller?
In the Service being called from the binder?
Directly in the Binder?
Any other idea?
All the above scenario discuss about the User creation. But what about User logon?
Let's say user uses the username and password to login in the application, so it won't need to validate the e-mail.
Where this validation should be?
In the Model being called from the controller?
In the Service being called from the controller?
Any other idea?
Check out the ASP.NET MVC Contact Manager Sample Application it has a very good architecture im my opinion
http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/tutorial-26-cs.aspx'>http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/tutorial-26-cs.aspx
I'm a big fan of putting calling the validation from the controllers and having the validation routine return an ActionResult so the controller can know what to do with the result.
For what it's worth, here's what I have scrounged up in my current project:
I have Models, Repositories (you can call them Services if you like), and ViewModels. I try to avoid writing custom model binders because (a) it's boring and (b) a strange place to put validation, IMHO. To me, a model binder is just taking items from the request and shoving them into an object. PHP, for example, doesn't do any validation when plucking items from a header into the $_POST array; it's the thing we plug the array into that cares about its contents.
My Model objects generally never allow themselves to enter an invalid state. This means that required parameters are passed in during constructors and properties will throw exceptions if they're attempted to be set with invalid values. And, in general, I try to design my Model objects to be immutable. For example, I have an Address object for mailing addresses that is constructed with an AddressBuilder object with looks at the field requirements for a given country by inspecting an AddressScheme that can be retrieved from the AddressSchemeRepository. Phew. But I think it's a good example because it takes something conceptually simple ("validate a mailing address") and makes it complicated in real world usage ("we accept addresses from over 30 countries, and those formatting rules are sitting in a database, not in my code").
Since constructing this Model object is kind of a pain--as well it should be, since it's being quite particular about the data that gets loaded into it--I have a, say, InputAddressViewModel object that my view binds to. The InputAddressViewModel implements IDataErrorInfo so that I get ASP.NET MVC's DefaultModelBinder to add errors to the ModelState automatically. For simple validation routines that I know ahead of time (phone number formatting, first name required, e-mail address format), I can implement these right in the InputAddressViewModel.
The other advantage of having a view model is that because it is shamelessly tailored to a particular view, your real model is more reusable because it doesn't have to make any weird concessions to make it suitable for UI display (e.g., needs to implement INotifyPropertyChanged or Serializable or any of that mess).
Other validation errors about the address I won't know about until I interact with my AddressScheme in my actual Model. Those errors will be there controller's job of orchestrating into the ModelState. Something like:
public ActionResult InputAddress(InputAddressViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
// "Front-line" validation passed; let's execute the save operation
// in the our view model
var result = model.Execute();
// The view model returns a status code to help the
// controller decide where to redirect the user next
switch (result.Status)
{
case InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult.Saved:
return RedirectToAction("my-work-is-done-here");
case InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult.UserCorrectableError:
// Something went wrong after we interacted with the
// datastore, like a bogus Canadian postal code or
// something. Our view model will have updated the
// Error property, but we need to call TryUpdateModel()
// to get these new errors to get added to
// the ModelState, since they were just added and the
// model binder ran before this method even got called.
TryUpdateModel(model);
break;
}
// Redisplay the input form to the user, using that nifty
// Html.ValidationMessage to convey model state errors
return View(model);
}
}
The switch may seem repulsive, but I think it makes sense: the view model is just a plain old class and doesn't have any knowledge of the Request or the HttpContext. This makes the logic of the view model easy to test in isolation without resorting to mocking and leaves the controller code left to, well, control by interpreting the model's result in a manner that makes sense on a Web site--it could redirect, it could set cookies, etc.
And the InputAddressViewModel's Execute() methods looks something like (some people would insist on putting this code into a Service object that the controller would call, but to me the view model will do so much finagling of the data to make it fit the real model that it makes sense to put it here):
public InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult Execute()
{
InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult result;
if (this.errors.Count > 0)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(
"Don't call me when I have errors");
}
// This is just my abstraction for clearly demarcating when
// I have an open connection to a highly contentious resource,
// like a database connection or a network share
using (ConnectionScope cs = new ConnectionScope())
{
var scheme = new AddressSchemeRepository().Load(this.Country);
var builder = new AddressBuilder(scheme)
.WithCityAs(this.City)
.WithStateOrProvinceAs(this.StateOrProvince);
if (!builder.CanBuild())
{
this.errors.Add("Blah", builder.Error);
result = new InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult()
{
Status = InputAddressViewModelExecuteStatus
.UserCorrectableError
};
}
else
{
var address = builder.Build();
// save the address or something...
result = new InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult()
{
Status = InputAddressViewModelExecuteStatus.Success,
Address = address
};
}
}
return result;
}
Does this make sense? Is it a best practice? I have no idea; it's certainly verbose; it's what I just came up with in the past two weeks after thinking about this problem. I think you're going to have some duplication of validation--your UI can't be a complete imbecile and not know what fields are required or not before submitting them to your model/repositories/services/whatever--otherwise the form could simply generate itself.
I should add that the impetus for this is that I've always kind of detested the Microsoft mentality of "set one property -> validate one property" because nothing ever works like that in reality. And you always end up getting an invalid object persisted because someone forgot to call IsValid or some such on the way to the data store. So another reason for having a view model is that it tailors itself to this concession so we get a lot of CRUD work of pulling items from the request, validation errors in the model state, etc quite easily without having to compromise the integrity of our model itself. If I have an Address object in hand, I know it's good. If I have an InputAddressViewModel object in hand, I know I need to call it's Execute() method to get that golden Address object.
I'll look forward to reading some of the other answers.
After a lot of research I think I got the answers to my question so i decided to share.
The validation code should be on Model.
As per the idea of "thin controller, fat model" AND considering that a model would know what it needs to validate or not.
For example, let's say I decide to user the Foo.Models in other solution but I decide NOT to use any other project and the validation is in other project.
I'll have to re-code the entire validation in this case what is a total waste of time, right?
OK. The validation code must be in the model but where should it be called?
This validation must be called where you're saving it to your database or file.
As in the proposed scenario I'm considering the repository as a domain, then we should consider putting the validation just before the change saving [in this example I'm using Entity Framework but it's not necessary, it's just to show]:
public class UserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
public void Create(User user)
{
user.Validate();
var db = dbFooEntities();
db.AddToUsers(user);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
As per MS recommendation, the model validation should raise an exception and the controller must populate the ModelState with the errors found [I'll try to update this answer with a sample code on that as soon as I finish my app].
With that we have an answer for question #1.
What about question #2, regarding the login validation?
As login is not a situation where you're persisting your data, the validation should stay on the Service since logging in is a service in this case.
So, the answers for the question are:
In the Model being called from the REPOSITORY [that is called by the controller]
In the Service being called from the controller
This is very interesting and it helps me a lot in deciding where to put validation.
currently I feel the most for each model implementing a "Validate" method, which is called from a Repository or a Service.
However, what about validating if a chosen username is unique?
Should that code be inside the User model, or inside the UserService class, or in the UserRepository class?
If the uniqueness validation should be inside the User model, then the User model should have access to either the UserService or the UserRepository class. Is that OK, or is that against any "best practice" pattern?
For example:
class User
{
string Username { get; set; }
string Email { get; set; }
string Password { get; set; } // hashed and salted of course :)
IEnumerable<RuleViolation> Validate()
{
List<RuleViolation> violations = new List<RuleViolation>();
IUserService service = MyApplicationService.UserService; // MyApplicationService is a singleton class, especialy designed so that the User model can access application services
// Username is required
if ( string.IsNullOrEmpty(Username) )
violations.Add(new RuleViolation("Username", "Username is required"));
// Username must be unique: Should uniqueness be validated here?
else if( !service.IsUsernameAvailable(Username)
violations.Add(new RuleViolation("Username", "Username is already taken!"));
// Validate email etc...
return violations;
}
}
interface IUserRepository
{
void Save(User item);
}
interface IUserService
{
IUserRepository UserRepository { get; }
void Save(User item);
}
class UserService : IUserService
{
public UserService(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
}
IUserRepository UserRepository { get; private set}
public void Save(User user)
{
IEnumerable<RuleViolation> violations = user.Validate();
if(violations.Count() > 0)
throw new RuleViolationException(violations); // this will be catched by the Controller, which will copy the violations to the ModelState errors collection. But the question is, should we validat the user here, or in the UserRepository class?
UserRepository.Save(user);
}
}
class UserRepository : IUserRepository
{
void Save(User item)
{
IEnumerable<RuleViolation> violations = user.Validate();
if(violations.Count() > 0)
throw new RuleViolationException(violations); // this will be catched by the Controller, which will copy the violations to the ModelState errors collection. But the question is, should we validate the user here, or in the UserService class?
UserRepository.Save(user);
}
}
My guess would be that validation should be as close to the model as possible. So I'd say that the UserRepository should be the one responsible for validating it's model being added.
The most important queston for me is: Should the User model know about the IUserService / IUserRepository interfaces so that it can validate the Username uniqueness?
Or should the IUserService service validate uniqueness?
I'm curious about your views on this!
I'm using the DataAnnotations attributes in combination with a MVC model binder to do my validation and its pretty awesome. Since I treat User input as Command View Models its the cleanest way to keep domain clean from outside concerns.
http://bradwilson.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/dataannotations-and-aspnet-mvc.html
This also allows me to take advantage of AutoForm by LosTechies.com:
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/hex/archive/2009/06/17/opinionated-input-builders-part-8-the-auto-form.aspx
And I expect the client side validation tools in MVC 2, VS 2010 to take advantage of these attributes as well.
So I'm whipping out user input view models, commands, at a furious pace right now and tying them into not only the AutoForm functionality but my own custom UI templates to get AutoGrid and AutoOutput from these attributes as well.
Nothing is better than saying:
Html.AutoForm(Model);
Or
Html.AutoGrid(Model.Products);
And getting validation and html generation in a very DRY and orthogonal way. My controllers are light, my domain pristine, and my time is unoccupied by writing the same if( string.IsNullOrEmpty() ) method on every object with a FirstName property.
For me the approach was not as "philosophical" as others have written about. I'm trying to be very pragmatic about MVC development and I get a ton of bang for the buck out of these bits.