Shielding nullable domain properties with ViewModel - asp.net-mvc

I am using Entity Framework 4.0, and making use of POCO objects. When I populate POCO objects from the DB, I translate property values to my own Domain objects, which we can call my Model.
Necessarily, whether or not the fields of my Model are Nullable depends on whether the value it maps to in the database comes from a NULL or NOT NULL column. I won't go into detail, but the values must be nullable in the DB, because a user can partially save a draft of the object before publishing it to the public. That being the case, I have several fields that are nullable. So let's say my model looks like:
public class MyModel
{
public int? Field1 {get; set; }
public DateTime? Field2 {get; set; }
public int Field3 {get; set; }
}
If I use this Model in my View, complete with nullable fields, I begin receiving errors that tell me I cannot use nullable properties as values in various places, like HTML helpers, etc. I could say something like if (Model.MyBoolField.HasValue && Model.MyBoolField.Value) { // etc }, but that feels bulky for a view.
I considered creating a ViewModel object that inherits from my original domain object and has new, non-nullable versions of my nullable fields that return an appropriate value if the base version is null. So something like:
public class MyViewModel : MyModel
{
public new int Field1
{
get { return base.Field1 ?? 7; }
}
public new DateTime Field2
{
get { return base.Field2 ?? DateTime.Now; }
}
}
My problem with this is that I don't always know a good "default" value to display. What if I threw an exception in the View Model's getter when the base value is null? Is that poor practice?
I'm basically looking for a best practice on how to handle nullable fields in a model, particularly when displaying in a View.

If you just need to display these fields in a View, you don't need to specify or check whether is has a value or not.
Using Model.Field1 in your View file is enough. It will simple not display anything, and it won't throw an exception. You can always use ?? to set a default when it makes sense.
#(Model.Field1 ?? "There is nothing to see here")

In most of the cases I use the "For" helpers, which seem OK with Nullable values (PublishedCount is a nullable property):
#Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.BillPull.PublishedCount, new { id="txtPublishedCount" })
#Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.BillPull.PublishedCount)
When I need to use just TextBox, I use the GetValueOrDefault method, with whatever default value the framework provides:
#Html.TextBox("BillPull.AutoPublishDate", Model.BillPull.AutoPublishDate.GetValueOrDefault().ToString(dateFormat), new { id = "dtpAutoPublishDate" })
#Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.BillPull.AutoPublishDate)

Related

Ignore property from serialization in a collection of a type with Json.Net

Is there an "easy way" to ignore a property from Model serialization on a collection of a type in Asp.Net Core?
For example
public sealed class MainViewModel
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
[JsonIgnore("PropertyInSubViewModel")]
public ICollection<SubViewModel> Products { get; set; }
}
The idea was to remove some property in SubViewModel from model serialization, so when I get it in my action, it would have its default value set, not the one set through the request.
Not with JsonIgnore. That can only be applied on the actual property that you want to ignore, and is constant at that point. However, JSON.NET does have support for conditional serialization. The easiest and most straight-forward is adding a ShouldSerialize* method to your class. You'd obviously need to determine some condition you could lean on for the determination, but that could be a straight-forward as literally setting some boolean on your sub view model instances. Basically, you just add something like:
public class SubViewModel
{
...
public bool ShouldSerializePropertyInSubViewModel()
{
// return true or false to either allow or disallow serializing the property on this instance
}
}

Should ViewModels have Count properties to simplify the View logic?

Which approach to ViewModels is better:
1. Just have an ICollection<T> in the ViewModel and access it's properties in views, which is pretty much what I'd do in ASP.NET Forms, like this:
public ICollection<Order> Orders {get; set;}
so that in the View I would do something like this
#if(Model.Orders.Count > 0){
or
2. Create a property for the Count of an ICollection so the View can simply reference that value directly.
public ICollection<Order> Orders { get; set; }
public int OrderCount { get { return Orders.Count ; } }
and then in the view
#if(Model.OrderCount > 0) {
or perhaps a boolean property HasOrders to further reduce the logic in the View?
Edit
I'm a bit surprised by the comments, I accept that this is subjective, but then so are questions about whether to use a string property for a date and everyone has to start learning somewhere.
Will I have numerous uses of the OrderCount property? The if and then a label to display the actual count. As such it will be used more frequently than say the customer email address yet I would be astonished if anyone suggested that
public string Email { get; set; }
was taking things too far.
To try to refocus the question a little; what I'm trying to determine is should the ViewModel provide simple properties for everything the view needs - so there is no need to reach down into the Model.Orders to access the Count. Should the View be kept pure and free from logic / 'programming'
3.) Don't use a Collection<T> on a viewmodel, it's probably overkill. Instead, use T[]. Why? Because you shouldn't need .Add, .Remove, and other overhead methods offered by ICollection for an IEnumerable property in a viewmodel. In the end, if you are just using it as a DTO to pass data from a controller to a view, an array is perfectly fine. Nothing will have to be added to or removed from the enumerable during transit to and from the controller. Arrays are generally faster and leaner than Lists and other IEnumerable implementations.
public Order[] Orders { get; set; }
Then, don't use .Count, use .Length. Having a separate property is usually overkill too IMO. Why? Because it just means you end up writing more code where you don't have to. Why add an OrdersCount property when you can just use Orders.Length?
#if (Model.Orders.Length > 0) {
If you are looking for something a little shorter, you can use the .Any() LINQ extension method (note you will have to have using System.Linq; when using this in a viewmodel class, but nothing extra should be needed to use it in a razor view):
#if (Model.Orders.Any()) { // returns true if Model.Orders.Length > 0
One possible exception to this guideline could be if Orders is not set, meaning it is null. In that case, your razor code above would throw a NullReferenceException. For this you could create a HasOrders property on the viewmodel to test against null and .Length. However a simpler solution could be to just initialize the property in a constructor:
public class MyViewModel
{
public MyViewModel()
{
Orders = new Order[0];
}
public Order[] Orders { get; set; }
}
Granted, with the above someone could still set the array to null, so it's your decision of whether to do this, or create a separate property to test against null, or just test against null in your razor code.
using System.Linq;
public class MyViewModel
{
public Order[] Orders { get; set; }
public bool HasOrders { get { return Orders != null && Orders.Any(); } }
}
...or...
#if (Model.Orders != null && Model.Orders.Any()) {
Any way you go, you end up with a little more code in either the consuming class or the consumed class. Use these factors to decide which approach means less code to write:
a.) Is it possible for the property to be null?
b.) How many collection properties are in the viewmodel?
c.) How many times do you have to test against either null or .Length in a razor view?

Entity Framework ASP.NET MVC private model fields

There is a field in our database which really ought to be a boolean, but for some reason the original developers made it a CHAR which will either be set to "1" or "0".
[Column("CHARGEABLE")]
[StringLength(1)]
private string Chargeable { get; set; }
I want my model to represent this field as a boolean so I figured I could add a property to my model to wrap it:
[NotMapped]
public bool ChargeableTrue
{
get
{
return Chargeable == "1" ? true : false;
}
set
{
Chargeable = value ? "1" : "0";
}
}
Now on my View I just display the EditorFor ( ChargeableTrue ), but when I click save it doesn't actually update it.
I think what is happening is that when the model is being updated, it's still attempting to get the value of 'Chargeable' from the View, even though I haven't displayed it there. And since there is no input field, it just gets null and ends up saving that to the database.
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(call).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
What is one expected to do in this situation?
Based on KMan's answer, here's the extended version just in case you're not familiar with creating view models.
The idea is that your domain object is not really what you want to be updating exactly from your views. Instead, you create a go-between that can also include view-specific items (like a list of objects to populate a drop-down).
public class MyViewModel {
public bool Chargeable { get; set; }
}
Now you can do this:
#* In view *#
Html.EditorFor(m => m.Chargeable)
// In controller
public ActionResult Save(MyViewModel model) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
var domainObject = new MyObject() {
Chargeable = model.Chargeable ? "1" : "0"
};
// the rest of your code using domainObject
}
}
I'd consider just creating an overload of your domain object's constructor that accepts your view model to keep the mapping in one place. I typically use a tool like AutoMapper to map objects or manual extension methods.
A view model typically contains a sub-set of your domain object's properties, but can contain all of them or more properties like lists, visbility states, etc. They come in incredibly useful and I've never done a MVC project where I haven't used them.
Use a view model and make your mapping on the controller.

Can I access the discriminator value in TPH mapping with Entity Framework 4 CTP5

Using Entity Framework 4 CTP5 Code First and this example
Is it possible to access the discriminator value?
I would like to use it in a projection like
context.BillingDetails.Select(x => new { Number = x.Number, DiscrimitatorValue = /* how do I get the discriminator value? */ });
From this post I understand the discriminator cannot be mapped to a property but is there any other way of accessing it?
I may be late to the game on this one, but I just added a getter property to the base class that returned the name of the current type:
public string DiscriminatorValue {
get {
return this.GetType().Name;
}
}
Since by default EF is going to use this same value for the Discriminator field, they will match up.
In EF Core 2.1 (I haven't checked previous versions) it's enough to add Discriminator to the base abstract class as private set property. It will be mapped with adequate value.
public abstract class Entity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Discriminator { get; private set; }
}
EF by itself will automatically insert appropriate discriminator value to the database and will automatically set it to an object on read.
After further information from Morteza Manavi in the comments of his post the simple answer is no
you should be aware that the discriminator column is used internally by Code First and you cannnot read/write its values from an inheritance mapping standpoint.
To access the discriminator I would have to execute a SqlQuery against the database or change my mapping strategy.
Reason aside, I recently ran into the same problem but believe this is still relevant for v4 of the EF Framework.
First, create a view which selects the discriminator value into two columns.
create view dbo.vw_BillingDetail
as
select BillingDetailId, DiscriminatorValue, DiscriminatorValue as DiscriminatorValue2 from dbo.BillingDetail
go
Secondly, map the view to your entity during context creation:
modelBuilder
.Entity<BillingDetail>()
.HasKey(n => n.BillingDetailId)
.Map(map =>
{
map.ToTable("vw_Person");
})
Thirdly, define your discriminator mapping for your derived class using one of the columns in your view:
.Map<MyDerivedBillingDetail>(map =>
{
map.Requires("DiscriminatorValue2").HasValue("YourValue");
})
Finally, define a getter and a private setter for the other discriminator column in your view with the DatabaseGenerated annotation set as Computed to prevent EF from updating/inserting for this field:
class BillingDetail
{
public BillingDetailId { get; set; }
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Computed)]
public DiscriminatorValue { get; private set; }
}
You can change the private setter to be protected and set this value explicitly during the construction of your derived entities so that the discriminator has a value prior to being persisted:
class MyDerivedBillingDetail : BillingDetail
{
public MyDerivedBillingDetail()
{
this.DiscriminatorValue = "MyValue";
}
}
To expand on #Michael Black's answer for Entity Framework Core 2.1 (earlier? tested in 2.1.4)
You can use any property name, database field name and data type you want.
Create a property:
[Column("foo_type_id")]
class Foo {
public FooTypesEnum TypeId {get; set;}
}
Then in your context class with the fluent API via modelBuilder:
modelBuilder.Entity<Foo>(b => {
b.HasDiscriminator(foo => foo.TypeId)
.HasValue<SubFooA>(FooTypesEnum.SubFooA)
.HasValue<SubFooB>(FooTypesEnum.SubFooB);
});
This is really useful if you need to build composable queries that e.g., group on the discriminator, etc.
Why don't you use the following query instead?
var q = con.BillingDetails.OfType<BankAccount>().ToList();
You can add a property with the name you gave to the discriminator in EF Core. Example:
In DBContext:
...HasDiscriminator<string>("Type")..
In base class do:
public string Type { get; private set; }

How do I populate a dropdownlist with enum values?

I have an enum for one of the properties of my view-model. I want to display a drop-down list that contains all the values of the enum. I can get this to work with the following code.
What I'm wondering is whether there is a simple way to convert from an enum to an IEnumerable? I can do it manually as in the following example, but when I add a new enum value the code breaks. I imagine that I can do it via reflection as per this example, but but are there other ways to do this?
public enum Currencies
{
CAD, USD, EUR
}
public ViewModel
{
[Required]
public Currencies SelectedCurrency {get; set;}
public SelectList Currencies
{
List<Currencies> c = new List<Currencies>();
c.Add(Currencies.CAD);
c.Add(Currencies.USD);
c.Add(Currencies.EUR);
return new SelectList(c);
}
}
I'm using a helper that i found here to populate my SelectLists with a generic enum type, i did a little modification to add the selected value though, here's how it looks like :
public static SelectList ToSelectList<T>(this T enumeration, string selected)
{
var source = Enum.GetValues(typeof(T));
var items = new Dictionary<object, string>();
var displayAttributeType = typeof(DisplayAttribute);
foreach (var value in source)
{
FieldInfo field = value.GetType().GetField(value.ToString());
DisplayAttribute attrs = (DisplayAttribute)field.
GetCustomAttributes(displayAttributeType, false).FirstOrDefault()
items.Add(value, attrs != null ? attrs.GetName() : value.ToString());
}
return new SelectList(items, "Key", "Value", selected);
}
The nice thing about it is that it reads the DisplayAttribute as the title rather than the enum name. (if your enums contain spaces or you need localization then it makes your life much easier)
So you will need to add the Display attirubete to your enums like this :
public enum User_Status
{
[Display(Name = "Waiting Activation")]
Pending, // User Account Is Pending. Can Login / Can't participate
[Display(Name = "Activated" )]
Active, // User Account Is Active. Can Logon
[Display(Name = "Disabled" )]
Disabled, // User Account Is Diabled. Can't Login
}
and this is how you use them in your views.
<%: Html.DropDownList("ChangeStatus" , ListExtensions.ToSelectList(Model.statusType, user.Status))%>
Model.statusType is just an enum object of type User_Status.
That's it , no more SelectLists in your ViewModels. In my example I'm refrencing an enum in my ViewModel but you can Refrence the enum type directly in your view though. I'm just doing it to make everything clean and nice.
Hope that was helpful.
Look at Enum.GetNames(typeof(Currencies))
I am very late on this one but I just found a really cool way to do this with one line of code, if you are happy to add the Unconstrained Melody NuGet package (a nice, small library from Jon Skeet).
This solution is better because:
It ensures (with generic type constraints) that the value really is an enum value (due to Unconstrained Melody)
It avoids unnecessary boxing (due to Unconstrained Melody)
It caches all the descriptions to avoid using reflection on every call (due to Unconstrained Melody)
It is less code than the other solutions!
So, here are the steps to get this working:
In Package Manager Console, "Install-Package UnconstrainedMelody"
Add a property on your model like so:
//Replace "YourEnum" with the type of your enum
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> AllItems
{
get
{
return Enums.GetValues<YourEnum>().Select(enumValue => new SelectListItem { Value = enumValue.ToString(), Text = enumValue.GetDescription() });
}
}
Now that you have the List of SelectListItem exposed on your model, you can use the #Html.DropDownList or #Html.DropDownListFor using this property as the source.
So many good answers - I thought I'sd add my solution - I am building the SelectList in the view (and not in the Controller):
In my c#:
namespace ControlChart.Models
//My Enum
public enum FilterType {
[Display(Name = "Reportable")]
Reportable = 0,
[Display(Name = "Non-Reportable")]
NonReportable,
[Display(Name = "All")]
All };
//My model:
public class ChartModel {
[DisplayName("Filter")]
public FilterType Filter { get; set; }
}
In my cshtml:
#using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations
#using ControlChart.Models
#model ChartMode
#*..........*#
#Html.DropDownListFor(x => x.Filter,
from v in (ControlChart.Models.FilterType[])(Enum.GetValues(typeof(ControlChart.Models.FilterType)))
select new SelectListItem() {
Text = ((DisplayAttribute)(typeof(FilterType).GetField(v.ToString()).GetCustomAttributes(typeof(DisplayAttribute), false).First())).Name,
Value = v.ToString(),
Selected = v == Model.Filter
})
HTH
Maybe is too late, but i think it could be useful for people with the same problem.
I've found here that now with MVC 5 it's included an EnumDropDownListFor html helper that makes for no longer necesary the use of custom helpers or other workarounds.
In this particular case, just add this:
#Html.EnumDropDownListFor(x => x.SelectedCurrency)
and that's all!
You can also translate or change the displayed text via data annotations and resources files:
Add the following data annotations to your enum:
public enum Currencies
{
[Display(Name="Currencies_CAD", ResourceType=typeof(Resources.Enums)]
CAD,
[Display(Name="Currencies_USD", ResourceType=typeof(Resources.Enums)]
USD,
[Display(Name="Currencies_EUR", ResourceType=typeof(Resources.Enums)]
EUR
}
Create the corresponding resources file.

Resources