Using Automapper I create a simple map:
Mapper.CreateMap<MyCustomerDTO, YourCustomerDTO>()
I often need to go the other way too. Do I need to also create the mapping the other way, or will Automapper infer it based on the above mapping?
Mapper.CreateMap<YourCustomerDTO, MyCustomerDTO>() //Needed?
This is a duplicate to Do i need to create automapper createmap both ways?
Note the answer regarding .ReverseMap() here.
Note that .ReverseMap() is for basic mapping. If you need to use options (such as specific ForMember mappings), you will need to create a custom reverse map.
No. you must create two way mapping. A good helper method for two way mapping could be :
protected virtual void ViceVersa<T1, T2>()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<T1, T2>();
Mapper.CreateMap<T2, T1>();
}
then use it like this :
ViceVersa<T1, T2>();
you need to create second mapping as well. A simple test trying to run your app without second mapping will give you a runtime error
I've come across the same issue when working with AutoMapper, and #Behnam-Esmaili is a good answer but it could be improved.
You could implement a extension method for IMapperConfigurationExpression which would do this two way mapping and also expecting two optional parameter (Action<IMappingExpression<T, Y>>) which would be used when trying to configure the Mappings for both types.
public static class ModelMapper
{
private static readonly IMapper _mapper;
static ModelMapper()
{
var mapperConfiguration = new MapperConfiguration(config =>
{
config.CreateTwoWayMap<CustomerViewModel, Customer>(
secondExpression: (exp) => exp.ForMember((source) => source.CustomerEmail, opt => opt.MapFrom(src => src.Email)));
});
_mapper = mapperConfiguration.CreateMapper();
}
public static void CreateTwoWayMap<T, Y>(this IMapperConfigurationExpression config,
Action<IMappingExpression<T, Y>> firstExpression = null,
Action<IMappingExpression<Y, T>> secondExpression = null)
{
var mapT = config.CreateMap<T, Y>();
var mapY = config.CreateMap<Y, T>();
firstExpression?.Invoke(mapT);
secondExpression?.Invoke(mapY);
}
public static T Map<T>(object model)
{
return _mapper.Map<T>(model);
}
}
The implementation above is a one way of achieving it, however it can be design differently.
Related
Is there a way to make a reflection for a view model property as an element with different name and id values on the html side.
That is the main question of what I want to achieve. So the basic introduction for the question is like:
1- I have a view model (as an example) which created for a filter operation in view side.
public class FilterViewModel
{
public string FilterParameter { get; set; }
}
2- I have a controller action which is created for GETting form values(here it is filter)
public ActionResult Index(FilterViewModel filter)
{
return View();
}
3- I have a view that a user can filter on some data and sends parameters via querystring over form submit.
#using (Html.BeginForm("Index", "Demo", FormMethod.Get))
{
#Html.LabelFor(model => model.FilterParameter)
#Html.EditorFor(model => model.FilterParameter)
<input type="submit" value="Do Filter" />
}
4- And what I want to see in rendered view output is
<form action="/Demo" method="get">
<label for="fp">FilterParameter</label>
<input id="fp" name="fp" type="text" />
<input type="submit" value="Do Filter" />
</form>
5- And as a solution I want to modify my view model like this:
public class FilterViewModel
{
[BindParameter("fp")]
[BindParameter("filter")] // this one extra alias
[BindParameter("param")] //this one extra alias
public string FilterParameter { get; set; }
}
So the basic question is about BindAttribute but the usage of complex type properties. But also if there is a built in way of doing this is much better.
Built-in pros:
1- Usage with TextBoxFor, EditorFor, LabelFor and other strongly typed view model helpers can understand and communicate better with each other.
2- Url routing support
3- No framework by desing problems :
In general, we recommend folks don’t write custom model binders
because they’re difficult to get right and they’re rarely needed. The
issue I’m discussing in this post might be one of those cases where
it’s warranted.
Link of quote
And also after some research I found these useful works:
Binding model property with different name
One step upgrade of first link
Here some informative guide
Result: But none of them give me my problems exact solution. I am looking for a strongly typed solution for this problem. Of course if you know any other way to go, please share.
Update
The underlying reasons why I want to do this are basically:
1- Everytime I want to change the html control name then I have to change PropertyName at compile time. (There is a difference Changing a property name between changing a string in code)
2- I want to hide (camouflage) real property names from end users. Most of times View Model property names same as mapped Entity Objects property names. (For developer readability reasons)
3- I don't want to remove the readability for developer. Think about lots of properties with like 2-3 character long and with mo meanings.
4- There are lots of view models written. So changing their names are going to take more time than this solution.
5- This is going to be better solution (in my POV) than others which are described in other questions until now.
Actually, there is a way to do it.
In ASP.NET binding metadata gathered by TypeDescriptor, not by reflection directly. To be more precious, AssociatedMetadataTypeTypeDescriptionProvider is used, which, in turn, simply calls TypeDescriptor.GetProvider with our model type as parameter:
public AssociatedMetadataTypeTypeDescriptionProvider(Type type)
: base(TypeDescriptor.GetProvider(type))
{
}
So, everything we need is to set our custom TypeDescriptionProvider for our model.
Let's implement our custom provider. First of all, let's define attribute for custom property name:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class CustomBindingNameAttribute : Attribute
{
public CustomBindingNameAttribute(string propertyName)
{
this.PropertyName = propertyName;
}
public string PropertyName { get; private set; }
}
If you already have attribute with desired name, you can reuse it. Attribute defined above is just an example. I prefer to use JsonPropertyAttribute because in most cases I work with json and Newtonsoft's library and want to define custom name only once.
The next step is to define custom type descriptor. We will not implement whole type descriptor logic and use default implementation. Only property accessing will be overridden:
public class MyTypeDescription : CustomTypeDescriptor
{
public MyTypeDescription(ICustomTypeDescriptor parent)
: base(parent)
{
}
public override PropertyDescriptorCollection GetProperties()
{
return Wrap(base.GetProperties());
}
public override PropertyDescriptorCollection GetProperties(Attribute[] attributes)
{
return Wrap(base.GetProperties(attributes));
}
private static PropertyDescriptorCollection Wrap(PropertyDescriptorCollection src)
{
var wrapped = src.Cast<PropertyDescriptor>()
.Select(pd => (PropertyDescriptor)new MyPropertyDescriptor(pd))
.ToArray();
return new PropertyDescriptorCollection(wrapped);
}
}
Also custom property descriptor need to be implemented. Again, everything except property name will be handled by default descriptor. Note, NameHashCode for some reason is a separate property. As name changed, so it's hash code need to be changed too:
public class MyPropertyDescriptor : PropertyDescriptor
{
private readonly PropertyDescriptor _descr;
private readonly string _name;
public MyPropertyDescriptor(PropertyDescriptor descr)
: base(descr)
{
this._descr = descr;
var customBindingName = this._descr.Attributes[typeof(CustomBindingNameAttribute)] as CustomBindingNameAttribute;
this._name = customBindingName != null ? customBindingName.PropertyName : this._descr.Name;
}
public override string Name
{
get { return this._name; }
}
protected override int NameHashCode
{
get { return this.Name.GetHashCode(); }
}
public override bool CanResetValue(object component)
{
return this._descr.CanResetValue(component);
}
public override object GetValue(object component)
{
return this._descr.GetValue(component);
}
public override void ResetValue(object component)
{
this._descr.ResetValue(component);
}
public override void SetValue(object component, object value)
{
this._descr.SetValue(component, value);
}
public override bool ShouldSerializeValue(object component)
{
return this._descr.ShouldSerializeValue(component);
}
public override Type ComponentType
{
get { return this._descr.ComponentType; }
}
public override bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return this._descr.IsReadOnly; }
}
public override Type PropertyType
{
get { return this._descr.PropertyType; }
}
}
Finally, we need our custom TypeDescriptionProvider and way to bind it to our model type. By default, TypeDescriptionProviderAttribute is designed to perform that binding. But in this case we will not able to get default provider that we want to use internally. In most cases, default provider will be ReflectTypeDescriptionProvider. But this is not guaranteed and this provider is inaccessible due to it's protection level - it's internal. But we do still want to fallback to default provider.
TypeDescriptor also allow to explicitly add provider for our type via AddProvider method. That what we will use. But firstly, let's define our custom provider itself:
public class MyTypeDescriptionProvider : TypeDescriptionProvider
{
private readonly TypeDescriptionProvider _defaultProvider;
public MyTypeDescriptionProvider(TypeDescriptionProvider defaultProvider)
{
this._defaultProvider = defaultProvider;
}
public override ICustomTypeDescriptor GetTypeDescriptor(Type objectType, object instance)
{
return new MyTypeDescription(this._defaultProvider.GetTypeDescriptor(objectType, instance));
}
}
The last step is to bind our provider to our model types. We can implement it in any way we want. For example, let's define some simple class, such as:
public static class TypeDescriptorsConfig
{
public static void InitializeCustomTypeDescriptorProvider()
{
// Assume, this code and all models are in one assembly
var types = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()
.Where(t => t.GetProperties().Any(p => p.IsDefined(typeof(CustomBindingNameAttribute))));
foreach (var type in types)
{
var defaultProvider = TypeDescriptor.GetProvider(type);
TypeDescriptor.AddProvider(new MyTypeDescriptionProvider(defaultProvider), type);
}
}
}
And either invoke that code via web activation:
[assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(TypeDescriptorsConfig), "InitializeCustomTypeDescriptorProvider")]
Or simply call it in Application_Start method:
public class MvcApplication : HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start()
{
TypeDescriptorsConfig.InitializeCustomTypeDescriptorProvider();
// rest of init code ...
}
}
But this is not the end of the story. :(
Consider following model:
public class TestModel
{
[CustomBindingName("actual_name")]
[DisplayName("Yay!")]
public string TestProperty { get; set; }
}
If we try to write in .cshtml view something like:
#model Some.Namespace.TestModel
#Html.DisplayNameFor(x => x.TestProperty) #* fail *#
We will get ArgumentException:
An exception of type 'System.ArgumentException' occurred in System.Web.Mvc.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: The property Some.Namespace.TestModel.TestProperty could not be found.
That because all helpers soon or later invoke ModelMetadata.FromLambdaExpression method. And this method take expression we provided (x => x.TestProperty) and takes member name directly from member info and have no clue about any of our attributes, metadata (who cares, huh?):
internal static ModelMetadata FromLambdaExpression<TParameter, TValue>(/* ... */)
{
// ...
case ExpressionType.MemberAccess:
MemberExpression memberExpression = (MemberExpression) expression.Body;
propertyName = memberExpression.Member is PropertyInfo ? memberExpression.Member.Name : (string) null;
// I want to cry here - ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ...
}
For x => x.TestProperty (where x is TestModel) this method will return TestProperty, not actual_name, but model metadata contains actual_name property, have no TestProperty. That is why the property could not be found error thrown.
This is a design failure.
However despite this little inconvenience there are several workarounds, such as:
The easiest way is to access our members by theirs redefined names:
#model Some.Namespace.TestModel
#Html.DisplayName("actual_name") #* this will render "Yay!" *#
This is not good. No intellisense at all and as our model change we will have no any compilation errors. On any change anything can be broken and there is no easy way to detect that.
Another way is a bit more complex - we can create our own version of that helpers and forbid anybody from calling default helpers or ModelMetadata.FromLambdaExpression for model classes with renamed properties.
Finally, combination of previous two would be preferred: write own analogue to get property name with redefinition support, then pass that into default helper. Something like this:
#model Some.Namespace.TestModel
#Html.DisplayName(Html.For(x => x.TestProperty))
Compilation-time and intellisense support and no need to spend a lot of time for complete set of helpers. Profit!
Also everything described above work like a charm for model binding. During model binding process default binder also use metadata, gathered by TypeDescriptor.
But I guess binding json data is the best use case. You know, lots of web software and standards use lowercase_separated_by_underscores naming convention. Unfortunately this is not usual convention for C#. Having classes with members named in different convention looks ugly and can end up in troubles. Especially when you have tools that whining every time about naming violation.
ASP.NET MVC default model binder does not bind json to model the same way as it happens when you call newtonsoft's JsonConverter.DeserializeObject method. Instead, json parsed into dictionary. For example:
{
complex: {
text: "blabla",
value: 12.34
},
num: 1
}
will be translated into following dictionary:
{ "complex.text", "blabla" }
{ "complex.value", "12.34" }
{ "num", "1" }
And later these values along with others values from query string, route data and so on, collected by different implementations of IValueProvider, will be used by default binder to bind a model with help of metadata, gathered by TypeDescriptor.
So we came full circle from creating model, rendering, binding it back and use it.
The short answer is NO and long answer still NO. There is no built-in helper, attribute, model binder, whatever is it (Nothing out of box).
But what I did in before answer (I deleted it) was an awful solution that I realized yesterday. I am going to put it in github for who still wants to see (maybe it solves somebody problem) (I don't suggest it also!)
Now I searched it for again and I couldn't find anything helpful. If you are using something like AutoMapper or ValueInjecter like tool for mapping your ViewModel objects to Business objects and if you want to obfuscate that View Model parameters also, probably you are in some trouble. Of course you can do it but strongly typed html helpers are not going to help you alot. I even not talking about the if other developers taking branch and working over common view models.
Luckily my project (4 people working on it, and its commercial use for) not that big for now, so I decided to change View Model property names! (It is still lot work to do. Hundreds of view models to obfuscate their properties!!!) Thank you Asp.Net MVC !
There some ways in the links which I gave in question. But also if you still want to use the BindAlias attribute, I can only suggest you to use the following extension methods. At least you dont have to write same alias string which you write in BindAlias attribute.
Here it is:
public static string AliasNameFor<TModel, TProperty>(this HtmlHelper<TModel> htmlHelper,
Expression<Func<TModel, TProperty>> expression)
{
var memberExpression = ExpressionHelpers.GetMemberExpression(expression);
if (memberExpression == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Expression must be a member expression");
var aliasAttr = memberExpression.Member.GetAttribute<BindAliasAttribute>();
if (aliasAttr != null)
{
return MvcHtmlString.Create(aliasAttr.Alias).ToHtmlString();
}
return htmlHelper.NameFor(expression).ToHtmlString();
}
public static string AliasIdFor<TModel, TProperty>(this HtmlHelper<TModel> htmlHelper,
Expression<Func<TModel, TProperty>> expression)
{
var memberExpression = ExpressionHelpers.GetMemberExpression(expression);
if (memberExpression == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Expression must be a member expression");
var aliasAttr = memberExpression.Member.GetAttribute<BindAliasAttribute>();
if (aliasAttr != null)
{
return MvcHtmlString.Create(TagBuilder.CreateSanitizedId(aliasAttr.Alias)).ToHtmlString();
}
return htmlHelper.IdFor(expression).ToHtmlString();
}
public static T GetAttribute<T>(this ICustomAttributeProvider provider)
where T : Attribute
{
var attributes = provider.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(T), true);
return attributes.Length > 0 ? attributes[0] as T : null;
}
public static MemberExpression GetMemberExpression<TModel, TProperty>(Expression<Func<TModel, TProperty>> expression)
{
MemberExpression memberExpression;
if (expression.Body is UnaryExpression)
{
var unaryExpression = (UnaryExpression)expression.Body;
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)unaryExpression.Operand;
}
else
{
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
}
return memberExpression;
}
When you want to use it:
[ModelBinder(typeof(AliasModelBinder))]
public class FilterViewModel
{
[BindAlias("someText")]
public string FilterParameter { get; set; }
}
In html:
#* at least you dont write "someText" here again *#
#Html.Editor(Html.AliasNameFor(model => model.FilterParameter))
#Html.ValidationMessage(Html.AliasNameFor(model => model.FilterParameter))
So I am leaving this answer here like this. This is even not an answer (and there is no answer for MVC 5) but who searching in google for same problem might find useful this experience.
And here is the github repo: https://github.com/yusufuzun/so-view-model-bind-20869735
I know MVC4 uses NewtonSoft Json de/serialization. I was wondering how I can exclude a property on serialization to client, without using any of the data annotations like JsonIgnore/DataMemberIngore etc (the assembly is used elsewhere and can't be changed. Can I implement a custom formatter/JsonSerializerSettings/Dynamic ContractResolver etc for a specific object type and then filter out a specific property name?
Any help much appreciated.
Edit. Came up with the following as a first attempt. If anyone has a more elegant solution please let me know...
public class DynamicContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
public DynamicContractResolver()
{
}
protected override IList<JsonProperty> CreateProperties(Type type, Newtonsoft.Json.MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
IList<JsonProperty> properties = base.CreateProperties(type, Newtonsoft.Json.MemberSerialization.Fields);
if (type == typeof(SomeType))
{
var matchedProp = properties.Where(v=> v.PropertyName=="SomeProperty").FirstOrDefault();
if (matchedProp!=null)
{
properties.Remove(matchedProp);
}
}
return properties;
}
}
Plumbed into global.asax:
HttpConfiguration config = GlobalConfiguration.Configuration;
JsonSerializerSettings serializerSetting = new JsonSerializerSettings
{
ContractResolver = new DynamicContractResolver(),
ReferenceLoopHandling = ReferenceLoopHandling.Serialize
};
config.Formatters.JsonFormatter.SerializerSettings = serializerSetting;
Regards
Phil
This is solvable with a proper overriding
Override a Json function(s) that is in the MVC Controller class.
In this class you can customize the data. (with another mapping,
with reflection, ...)
Create a custom JsonResult class, just override the default one. You
are also able to override there the default serialization which is
going on there.
Now:
You can exclude this data when you already have a JSON
serialized string ... This would be the easiest option. Basically just string operations.
On the other hand you will also be able to call a custom NewtonSoft
serialization and you can do there whatever you want ... Even use custom serializations.
I am trying to create a conditional ContractResolver so that I can control the serialization differently depending on the web request/controller action.
For example in my User Controller I want to serialize all properties of my User but some of the related objects I might only serialize the primitive types. But if I went to my company controller I want to serialize all the properties of the company but maybe only the primitive ones of the user (because of this I don't want to use dataannotations or shouldserialize functions.
So looking at the custom ContractResolver page i created my own.
http://james.newtonking.com/projects/json/help/index.html?topic=html/ContractResolver.htm
It looks like this
public class IgnoreListContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, List<string>> IgnoreList;
public IgnoreListContractResolver(Dictionary<string, List<string>> i)
{
IgnoreList = i;
}
protected override IList<JsonProperty> CreateProperties(Type type, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
List<JsonProperty> properties = base.CreateProperties(type, memberSerialization).ToList();
if(IgnoreList.ContainsKey(type.Name))
{
properties.RemoveAll(x => IgnoreList[type.Name].Contains(x.PropertyName));
}
return properties;
}
}
And then in my web api controller action for GetUsers i do this
public dynamic GetUsers()
{
List<User> Users = db.Users.ToList();
List<string> RoleList = new List<string>();
RoleList.Add("UsersInRole");
List<string> CompanyList = new List<string>();
CompanyList.Add("CompanyAccesses");
CompanyList.Add("ArchivedMemberships");
CompanyList.Add("AddCodes");
Dictionary<string, List<string>> IgnoreList = new Dictionary<string, List<string>>();
IgnoreList.Add("Role", RoleList);
IgnoreList.Add("Company", CompanyList);
GlobalConfiguration
.Configuration
.Formatters.JsonFormatter
.SerializerSettings
.ContractResolver = new IgnoreListContractResolver(IgnoreList);
return new { List = Users, Status = "Success" };
}
So when debugging this I see my contract resolver run and it returns the correct properties but the Json returned to the browser still contains entries for the properties I removed from the list.
Any ideas what I am missing or how I can step into the Json serialization step in webapi controllers.
*UPDATE**
I should add that this is in an MVC4 project that has both MVC controllers and webapi controllers. The User, Company, and Role objects are objects (created by code first) that get loaded from EF5. The controller in question is a web api controller. Not sure why this matters but I tried this in a clean WebApi project (and without EF5) instead of an MVC project and it worked as expected. Does that help identify where the problem might be?
Thanks
*UPDATE 2**
In the same MVC4 project I created an extension method for the Object class which is called ToJson. It uses Newtonsoft.Json.JsonSerializer to serialize my entities. Its this simple.
public static string ToJson(this object o, Dictionary<string, List<string>> IgnoreList)
{
JsonSerializer js = JsonSerializer.Create(new Newtonsoft.Json.JsonSerializerSettings()
{
Formatting = Formatting.Indented,
DateTimeZoneHandling = DateTimeZoneHandling.Utc,
ContractResolver = new IgnoreListContractResolver(IgnoreList),
ReferenceLoopHandling = ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore
});
js.Converters.Add(new Newtonsoft.Json.Converters.StringEnumConverter());
var jw = new StringWriter();
js.Serialize(jw, o);
return jw.ToString();
}
And then in an MVC action i create a json string like this.
model.jsonUserList = db.Users.ToList().ToJson(IgnoreList);
Where the ignore list is created exactly like my previous post. Again I see the contract resolver run and correctly limit the properties list but the output json string still contains everything (including the properties I removed from the list). Does this help? I must be doing something wrong and now it seems like it isn't the MVC or web api framework. Could this have anything to do with EF interactions/ proxies /etc. Any ideas would be much appreciated.
Thanks
*UPDATE 3***
Process of elimination and a little more thorough debugging made me realize that EF 5 dynamic proxies were messing up my serialization and ContractResolver check for the type name match. So here is my updated IgnoreListContractResolver. At this point I am just looking for opinions on better ways or if I am doing something terrible. I know this is jumping through a lot of hoops just to use my EF objects directly instead of DTOs but in the end I am finding this solution is really flexible.
public class IgnoreListContractResolver : CamelCasePropertyNamesContractResolver
{
private readonly Dictionary<string, List<string>> IgnoreList;
public IgnoreListContractResolver(Dictionary<string, List<string>> i)
{
IgnoreList = i;
}
protected override IList<JsonProperty> CreateProperties(Type type, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
List<JsonProperty> properties = base.CreateProperties(type, memberSerialization).ToList();
string typename = type.Name;
if(type.FullName.Contains("System.Data.Entity.DynamicProxies.")) {
typename = type.FullName.Replace("System.Data.Entity.DynamicProxies.", "");
typename = typename.Remove(typename.IndexOf('_'));
}
if (IgnoreList.ContainsKey(typename))
{
//remove anything in the ignore list and ignore case because we are using camel case for json
properties.RemoveAll(x => IgnoreList[typename].Contains(x.PropertyName, StringComparer.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase));
}
return properties;
}
}
I think it might help if you used Type instead of string for the ignore list's key type. So you can avoid naming issues (multiple types with the same name in different namespaces) and you can make use of inheritance. I'm not familiar with EF5 and the proxies, but I guess that the proxy classes derive from your entity classes. So you can check Type.IsAssignableFrom() instead of just checking whether typename is a key in the ignore list.
private readonly Dictionary<Type, List<string>> IgnoreList;
protected override IList<JsonProperty> CreateProperties(Type type, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
List<JsonProperty> properties = base.CreateProperties(type, memberSerialization).ToList();
// look for the first dictionary entry whose key is a superclass of "type"
Type key = IgnoreList.Keys.FirstOrDefault(k => k.IsAssignableFrom(type));
if (key != null)
{
//remove anything in the ignore list and ignore case because we are using camel case for json
properties.RemoveAll(x => IgnoreList[key].Contains(x.PropertyName, StringComparer.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase));
}
return properties;
}
Then the ignore list must be created like this (I also used the short syntax for creating the list and dictionary):
var CompanyList = new List<string> {
"CompanyAccesses",
"ArchivedMemberships",
"AddCodes"
};
var IgnoreList = new Dictionary<Type, List<string>> {
// I just replaced "Company" with typeof(Company) here:
{ typeof(Company), CompanyList }
};
Be aware that, if you use my code above, adding typeof(object) as the first key to the ignore list will cause this entry to be matched every time, and none of your other entries will ever be used! This happens because a variable of type object is assignable from every other type.
I have this really basic code in a MVC controller action. It maps an Operation model class to a very basic OperationVM view-model class .
public class OperationVM: Operation
{
public CategoryVM CategoryVM { get; set; }
}
I need to load the complete list of categories in order to create a CategoryVM instance.
Here's how I (try to) create a List<OperationVM> to show in the view.
public class OperationsController : Controller {
private SomeContext context = new SomeContext ();
public ViewResult Index()
{
var ops = context.Operations.Include("blah...").ToList();
Mapper.CreateMap<Operation, OperationVM>()
.ForMember(
dest => dest.CategoryVM,
opt => opt.MapFrom(
src => CreateCatVM(src.Category, context.Categories)
// trouble here ----------------^^^^^^^
)
);
var opVMs = ops.Select(op => Mapper.Map<Operation, OperationVM>(op))
.ToList();
return View(opVMs);
}
}
All works great first time I hit the page. The problem is, the mapper object is static. So when calling Mapper.CreateMap(), the instance of the current DbContext is saved in the closure given to CreateMap().
The 2nd time I hit the page, the static map is already in place, still using the reference to the initial, now disposed, DbContext.
The exact error is:
The operation cannot be completed because the DbContext has been disposed.
The question is: How can I make AutoMapper always use the current context instead of the initial one?
Is there a way to use an "instance" of automapper instead of the static Mapper class?
If this is possible, is it recommended to re-create the mapping every time? I'm worried about reflection slow-downs.
I read a bit about custom resolvers, but I get a similar problem - How do I get the custom resolver to use the current context?
It is possible, but the setup is a bit complicated. I use this in my projects with help of Ninject for dependency injection.
AutoMapper has concept of TypeConverters. Converters provide a way to implement complex operations required to convert certain types in a separate class. If converting Category to CategoryVM requires a database lookup you can implement that logic in custom TypeConverter class similar to this:
using System;
using AutoMapper;
public class CategoryToCategoryVMConverter :
TypeConverter<Category, CategoryVM>
{
public CategoryToCategoryVMConverter(DbContext context)
{
this.Context = context;
}
private DbContext Context { get; set; }
protected override CategoryVM ConvertCore(Category source)
{
// use this.Context to lookup whatever you need
return CreateCatVM(source, this.Context.Categories);
}
}
You then to configure AutoMapper to use your converter:
Mapper.CreateMap<Category, CategoryVM>().ConvertUsing<CategoryToCategoryVMConverter>();
Here comes the tricky part. AutoMapper will need to create a new instance of our converter every time you map values, and it will need to provide DbContext instance for constructor. In my projects I use Ninject for dependency injection, and it is configured to use the same instance of DbContext while processing a request. This way the same instance of DbContext is injected both in your controller and in your AutoMapper converter. The trivial Ninject configuration would look like this:
Bind<DbContext>().To<SomeContext>().InRequestScope();
You can of course use some sort of factory pattern to get instance of DbContext instead of injecting it in constructors.
Let me know if you have any questions.
I've found a workaround that's not completely hacky.
Basically, I tell AutoMapper to ignore the tricky field and I update it myself.
The updated controller looks like this:
public class OperationsController : Controller {
private SomeContext context = new SomeContext ();
public ViewResult Index()
{
var ops = context.Operations.Include("blah...").ToList();
Mapper.CreateMap<Operation, OperationVM>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.CategoryVM, opt => opt.Ignore());
var opVMs = ops.Select(
op => {
var opVM = Mapper.Map<Operation, OperationVM>(op);
opVM.CategoryVM = CreateCatVM(op.Category, context.Categories);
return opVM;
})
.ToList();
return View(opVMs);
}
}
Still curious how this could be done from within AutoMapper...
The answer from #LeffeBrune is perfect. However, I want to have the same behavior, but I don't want to map every property myself. Basically I just wanted to override the "ConstructUsing".
Here is what I came up with.
public static class AutoMapperExtension
{
public static void ConstructUsingService<TSource, TDestination>(this IMappingExpression<TSource, TDestination> mappingExression, Type typeConverterType)
{
mappingExression.ConstructUsing((ResolutionContext ctx) =>
{
var constructor = (IConstructorWithService<TSource, TDestination>)ctx.Options.ServiceCtor.Invoke(typeConverterType);
return constructor.Construct((TSource)ctx.SourceValue);
});
}
}
public class CategoryToCategoryVMConstructor : IConstructorWithService<Category, CategoryVM>
{
private DbContext dbContext;
public DTOSiteToHBTISiteConverter(DbContext dbContext)
{
this.dbContext = dbContext;
}
public CategoryVM Construct(Category category)
{
// Some commands here
if (category.Id > 0)
{
var vmCategory = dbContext.Categories.FirstOrDefault(m => m.Id == category.Id);
if (vmCategory == null)
{
throw new NotAllowedException();
}
return vmCategory;
}
return new CategoryVM();
}
}
// Initialization
Mapper.Initialize(cfg =>
{
cfg.ConstructServicesUsing(type => nInjectKernelForInstance.Get(type));
cfg.CreateMap<Category, CategoryVM>().ConstructUsingService(typeof(CategoryToCategoryVMConstructor));
};
We're using EF Code first, and have a data context for our sales database. Additionally, we have a class that sits on top of our data context and does some basic CRUD operations.
For example, we have the following function:
public static T Create<T>(int userId, T entity) where T : class, IAllowCreate
{
if (entity == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
using (SalesContext dc = new SalesContext())
{
dc.Set<T>().Add(entity);
dc.SaveChanges();
return entity;
}
}
I found an example of how to create fake contexts and IDBset properties. I started implementing that, but I ran in to an issue.
We use dc.Set() quite liberally (as seen above) in our code, as we attempt to create generic CRUD methods. Instead of having a ReadCustomer, ReadContact etc, we would just do Read(). However, dc.Set returns a DbSet, not an IDbSet, so I'm not able to mock that.
Has anyone been able to mock or fake DbContext and still use the Set functionality?
interface ISalesContext
{
IDbSet<T> GetIDbSet<T>();
}
class SalesContext : DbContext, ISalesContext
{
public IDbSet<T> GetIDbSet<T>()
{
return Set<T>();
}
}
I used a different name, but you can use the new operator if you prefer to hide the regular implementation.