I need to write a form for creating a new entity and with it, up to 3 relations (which are new entities).
I can either have it dynamically attach/delete them dynamically (which could be useful) or have all 3 always be related to the entity, and for them to have an 'active' boolean on them, which would be just as appropriate.
At what point should I be doing this? I need them rendered as checkboxes on the form.
So far I've tried attaching them to the entity prior to passing it to the form, but choice fields can't be passed unmapped entities, so that's no good.
I've also tinkered with a DataTransformer for this, although then, as far as I can see, I would have to create new entities in the DataTransformer, which seems wrong, and I can't get to work anyway- I don't have access to the entity within it and even hacking around that, the relationship fails to bind properly (Doctrine tries to save the relationships first).
In Symfony1 terms, I could just embed a couple of forms for each additional relation I needed, using new objects, and it'd just work, so surely there's still a relatively easy way around this?
A friend also recommended looking into the ResizeFormEventListener, but this, as far as I understand, is for 'resizing' a form based on the returned data, whilst I never want the form to change, I want 3 checkboxes always.
What's the best way to approach this problem?
I'm not sure on exact details without playing with it - but based on how i've done similar things, i'd be looking to use a 'collectiontype' and then adding the three department types into that.
Related
I am just getting started with ASP.NET MVC. So far I like it a lot.
I am trying to get up to speed but I need some clarification. I want to know when should I create a model for the logic.
I mean so many times I found my self putting all logic into one "master" model. I know its not the right way to go.
But then again I'm not sure if it is good to have redundant properties in my model.
I assume you are talking about ViewModels, and it is perfectly fine to have different viewmodels instead of having one complex model even the properties are repeating. With master model, it tends to get complicated down the road. However, for special cases like CustomerCreateVM and CustomerEditVM, I would create the commmon properties in base class CustomerVM and inherit it and for more readability I will keep them in one file. Does it answer your question ?
Your "View" model should accurately represent the information that is being shown/processed in that particular view. This means it should only have the fields that relate to the information being shown and nothing else. If it is not shown or used on the screen, it should not be in that model.
With MVC3, should I design my view models such that there is one that is bound to the view (DisplayModel), and one that is posted back to the controller (EditModel)?
To clarify, I am not asking about data models vs. view models -- I know it's not good to bind my views/controllers to data/domain models.
Nor am I asking about sharing one model across two separate views, one view that is used for displaying the data, and another view that is used for editing the data.
Rather, I am asking about one view that is used for editing data, and the model that is bound to the view vs. the model that is bound to the controller action.
In other words, if this is my view:
#model MyApp.Models.CustomerModel
Should my controller action look like:
public ActionResult Index(CustomerModel model)
Or:
public ActionResult Index(CustomerEditModel model)
At one point, we were doing the latter (separate). But lately, we've started doing the former (shared).
The reason for this change was because:
With MVC3 unobtrusive validation, if I'm using DataAnnotations on my model for validation, this is needed in both models if they are separated (on the display model to map client-side validation, and on the edit model for server-side validation).
As our application matured, we realized that our display and edit models were 95% identical, with the exception of the select lists that were in our view models. We've now moved these to a shared class and are passing these in via the view now.
But I've seen some other discussions that point to having shared models for view/controller to be a bad idea, and that it violates separation of concerns.
Can someone help me understand the tradeoffs for these two approaches?
I've seen perfectly good arguments for and against, it just depends what works best for your application. There's no one size fits all approach that can be applied!
If you haven't read it Jimmy Bogard has written a very good post about how his team does MVC here, which covers this topic.
I agree with rich.okelly's answer that there's no right approach.
There are a couple of concerns I have with using one model, though.
It's going to be very to always use one model without having unneeded properties when the view needs to display a selectable list of objects. The model will need to have the list of objects as well as a property to accept the POSTed value the user chooses. These unneeded properties add a small amount of code clutter and overhead.
(One way around this is to have the model contain only selected ID and have HTML helpers to build the lists.)
Another concern is more related to security.
A common scenario is displaying information in a form that should be considered read-only.
In the case of a ViewModel and an EditModel, the EditModel will only contain properties that are expected to be POSTed, whereas the ViewModel will contain all of the properties.
For example, if a form displays a user's salary, a user will be able to POST a 'salary' and have it bound to the ViewModel's Salary property automatically by MVC.
At this point, something has to be done to ensure it doesn't end up in the database. It could be if/else logic, a Bind attribute, Automapper logic or something else, but the point is that it's a step that could be overlooked.
When considering the lifespan of an application, I like the explicitness of the EditModel over time.
These concerns don't mean that two models are good and one model is bad, but they should be considered when choosing a design.
If the properties are the same for display and edit view models I see no reason to have separate classes.
I think you'll find that it's hit or miss no matter what way you go but if you can take the path of easiest maintainability then you should do that. In my experience, having a single model is much easier to maintain, obviously, but it seems that there is always some business decision that is made that forces me to split the models. If you're in that 95% then I think you are in really good shape. Your application, from a maintainability perspective related to your models, will be easy to maintain. When a change comes along, you have one place to make that change, for the most part. The issue I always seem to run into is scaling business changes across multiple models. Copy/paste issues, or simply forgetting about some property somewhere, always seems to hurt me because of the multi-model issue.
we realized that our display and edit models were 95% identical, with the
exception of the select lists that were in our view models. We've now
moved these to a shared class and are passing these in via the view now.
Are they 95% identical in data and operations or only in data? Remember that classes encapsulate data and behavior.
If they are 95% similar in properties but have totally different operations you might benefit from splitting them in two classes. Or you might not :)
As others pointed out there is no one-size-fit-all answer and in your case it seems that one class is OK...but if you start noticing that the behavior on each of them is unrelated don't be afraid to rethink you approach.
No - one view model for both directions. Mixing it up is not only harder to follow, but one could easily inject invalid values into the page that then get automatically bound. I could overwrite your customerid (or create one) for example.
Inherit from a base view model if you must or don't rely on data annotations at all and use the fluent api on your model save.
A great link (somewhat unrelated but the auto map is nice)
edit
(sorry someone else previously posted this below I just realized)
http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/06/30/how-we-do-mvc-view-models/
Also
ASP.net MVC - One ViewModel per View or per Action?
You (IMHO) should be generally binding to your method specific VieWModel rather than a shared view model. You could get caught in a trap of missing properties, etc. but it may also work just fine for you.
Use auto mapper to go between both. Jimmy also has a nice AutoMap attribute when returning to the View. Going back the other way I would not use a CustomerModel in general as there may be fields required in there that are not coming from my say, create view. For example a customer id may be a required field and for a "create" action it won't be present. But - if you find in the most of your cases this to actually work for you, then there is no reason at all not to use it.
Entity Framework 4, POCO objects and ASP.Net MVC2. I have a many to many relationship, lets say between BlogPost and Tag entities. This means that in my T4 generated POCO BlogPost class I have:
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags {
// getter and setter with the magic FixupCollection
}
private ICollection<Tag> _tags;
I ask for a BlogPost and the related Tags from an instance of the ObjectContext and send it to another layer (View in the MVC application). Later I get back the updated BlogPost with changed properties and changed relationships. For example it had tags "A" "B" and "C", and the new tags are "C" and "D". In my particular example there are no new Tags and the properties of the Tags never change, so the only thing which should be saved is the changed relationships. Now I need to save this in another ObjectContext. (Update: Now I tried to do in the same context instance and also failed.)
The problem: I can't make it save the relationships properly. I tried everything I found:
Controller.UpdateModel and Controller.TryUpdateModel don't work.
Getting the old BlogPost from the context then modifying the collection doesn't work. (with different methods from the next point)
This probably would work, but I hope this is just a workaround, not the solution :(.
Tried Attach/Add/ChangeObjectState functions for BlogPost and/or Tags in every possible combinations. Failed.
This looks like what I need, but it doesn't work (I tried to fix it, but can't for my problem).
Tried ChangeState/Add/Attach/... the relationship objects of the context. Failed.
"Doesn't work" means in most cases that I worked on the given "solution" until it produces no errors and saves at least the properties of BlogPost. What happens with the relationships varies: usually Tags are added again to the Tag table with new PKs and the saved BlogPost references those and not the original ones. Of course the returned Tags have PKs, and before the save/update methods I check the PKs and they are equal to the ones in the database so probably EF thinks that they are new objects and those PKs are the temp ones.
A problem I know about and might make it impossible to find an automated simple solution: When a POCO object's collection is changed, that should happen by the above mentioned virtual collection property, because then the FixupCollection trick will update the reverse references on the other end of the many-to-many relationship. However when a View "returns" an updated BlogPost object, that didn't happen. This means that maybe there is no simple solution to my problem, but that would make me very sad and I would hate the EF4-POCO-MVC triumph :(. Also that would mean that EF can't do this in the MVC environment whichever EF4 object types are used :(. I think the snapshot based change tracking should find out that the changed BlogPost has relationships to Tags with existing PKs.
Btw: I think the same problem happens with one-to-many relations (google and my colleague say so). I will give it a try at home, but even if that works that doesn't help me in my six many-to-many relationships in my app :(.
Let's try it this way:
Attach BlogPost to context. After attaching object to context the state of the object, all related objects and all relations is set to Unchanged.
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState to set your BlogPost to Modified
Iterate through Tag collection
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeRelationshipState to set state for relation between current Tag and BlogPost.
SaveChanges
Edit:
I guess one of my comments gave you false hope that EF will do the merge for you. I played a lot with this problem and my conclusion says EF will not do this for you. I think you have also found my question on MSDN. In reality there is plenty of such questions on the Internet. The problem is that it is not clearly stated how to deal with this scenario. So lets have a look on the problem:
Problem background
EF needs to track changes on entities so that persistance knows which records have to be updated, inserted or deleted. The problem is that it is ObjectContext responsibility to track changes. ObjectContext is able to track changes only for attached entities. Entities which are created outside the ObjectContext are not tracked at all.
Problem description
Based on above description we can clearly state that EF is more suitable for connected scenarios where entity is always attached to context - typical for WinForm application. Web applications requires disconnected scenario where context is closed after request processing and entity content is passed as HTTP response to the client. Next HTTP request provides modified content of the entity which has to be recreated, attached to new context and persisted. Recreation usually happends outside of the context scope (layered architecture with persistance ignorace).
Solution
So how to deal with such disconnected scenario? When using POCO classes we have 3 ways to deal with change tracking:
Snapshot - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Dynamic tracking proxies - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Manual synchronization.
Manual synchronization on single entity is easy task. You just need to attach entity and call AddObject for inserting, DeleteObject for deleting or set state in ObjectStateManager to Modified for updating. The real pain comes when you have to deal with object graph instead of single entity. This pain is even worse when you have to deal with independent associations (those that don't use Foreign Key property) and many to many relations. In that case you have to manually synchronize each entity in object graph but also each relation in object graph.
Manual synchronization is proposed as solution by MSDN documentation: Attaching and Detaching objects says:
Objects are attached to the object
context in an Unchanged state. If you
need to change the state of an object
or the relationship because you know
that your object was modified in
detached state, use one of the
following methods.
Mentioned methods are ChangeObjectState and ChangeRelationshipState of ObjectStateManager = manual change tracking. Similar proposal is in other MSDN documentation article: Defining and Managing Relationships says:
If you are working with disconnected
objects you must manually manage the
synchronization.
Moreover there is blog post related to EF v1 which criticise exactly this behavior of EF.
Reason for solution
EF has many "helpful" operations and settings like Refresh, Load, ApplyCurrentValues, ApplyOriginalValues, MergeOption etc. But by my investigation all these features work only for single entity and affects only scalar preperties (= not navigation properties and relations). I rather not test this methods with complex types nested in entity.
Other proposed solution
Instead of real Merge functionality EF team provides something called Self Tracking Entities (STE) which don't solve the problem. First of all STE works only if same instance is used for whole processing. In web application it is not the case unless you store instance in view state or session. Due to that I'm very unhappy from using EF and I'm going to check features of NHibernate. First observation says that NHibernate perhaps has such functionality.
Conclusion
I will end up this assumptions with single link to another related question on MSDN forum. Check Zeeshan Hirani's answer. He is author of Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes. If he says that automatic merge of object graphs is not supported, I believe him.
But still there is possibility that I'm completely wrong and some automatic merge functionality exists in EF.
Edit 2:
As you can see this was already added to MS Connect as suggestion in 2007. MS has closed it as something to be done in next version but actually nothing had been done to improve this gap except STE.
I have a solution to the problem that was described above by Ladislav. I have created an extension method for the DbContext which will automatically perform the add/update/delete's based on a diff of the provided graph and persisted graph.
At present using the Entity Framework you will need to perform the updates of the contacts manually, check if each contact is new and add, check if updated and edit, check if removed then delete it from the database. Once you have to do this for a few different aggregates in a large system you start to realize there must be a better, more generic way.
Please take a look and see if it can help http://refactorthis.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/introducing-graphdiff-for-entity-framework-code-first-allowing-automated-updates-of-a-graph-of-detached-entities/
You can go straight to the code here https://github.com/refactorthis/GraphDiff
I know it's late for the OP but since this is a very common issue I posted this in case it serves someone else.
I've been toying around with this issue and I think I got a fairly simple solution,
what I do is:
Save main object (Blogs for example) by setting its state to Modified.
Query the database for the updated object including the collections I need to update.
Query and convert .ToList() the entities I want my collection to include.
Update the main object's collection(s) to the List I got from step 3.
SaveChanges();
In the following example "dataobj" and "_categories" are the parameters received by my controller "dataobj" is my main object, and "_categories" is an IEnumerable containing the IDs of the categories the user selected in the view.
db.Entry(dataobj).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
dataobj = db.ServiceTypes.Include(x => x.Categories).Single(x => x.Id == dataobj.Id);
var it = _categories != null ? db.Categories.Where(x => _categories.Contains(x.Id)).ToList() : null;
dataobj.Categories = it;
db.SaveChanges();
It even works for multiple relations
The Entity Framework team is aware that this is a usability issue and plans to address it post-EF6.
From the Entity Framework team:
This is a usability issue that we are aware of and is something we have been thinking about and plan to do more work on post-EF6. I have created this work item to track the issue: http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864 The work item also contains a link to the user voice item for this--I encourage you to vote for it if you have not done so already.
If this impacts you, vote for the feature at
http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864
All of the answers were great to explain the problem, but none of them really solved the problem for me.
I found that if I didn't use the relationship in the parent entity but just added and removed the child entities everything worked just fine.
Sorry for the VB but that is what the project I am working in is written in.
The parent entity "Report" has a one to many relationship to "ReportRole" and has the property "ReportRoles". The new roles are passed in by a comma separated string from an Ajax call.
The first line will remove all the child entities, and if I used "report.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" instead of the "db.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" I would get the error.
report.ReportRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Remove(f))
Dim newRoles = If(String.IsNullOrEmpty(model.RolesString), New String() {}, model.RolesString.Split(","))
newRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Add(New ReportRole With {.ReportId = report.Id, .AspNetRoleId = f}))
When working with a nested model in a form, is there a way to sort the nested models in the view or in the controller? The closest answer I could find was here, but both of those solutions involve putting sort orders in the model. I'd rather avoid changing things fundamentally like that and keep this particular sort order to just one page.
You can always sort with ruby: parent.children.sort{|a,b| a.field <=> b.field} or something like that
Or you can add a find method to parent model, like def self.find_ordered_by_field
Can't think of another options...
Putting the sort in the models is absolutely the way to go. You shouldn't have any more ruby code than necessary in your views themselves, because it's much harder to test that your sorting is working the way you think it should.
When you add the sort at the model level (and either answer in the link you posted works well) you can add an automated test to verify that it is, in fact, sorting the way you'd like. This is business logic, and it belongs in the model.
Sometimes, however, you're looking to sort in a way that is NOT what you would normally want for this model. Maybe you normally want them sorted by name, but in this one view you want them sorted newest to oldest. At the very least, do the sort in the controller so once again it can be fully tested. But I would still put it in the model, personally.
Many people have written about using Automapper to map domain objects (models) to view models, which I find very interesting and useful, but my question is about how to do the opposite. I understand the complexity of this process and why Automapper doesn't work in that scenario but I have to do that a lot with form posting, specially when updating.
I have a model, I map it to a view model and then I present a form to the user. Then, the form is posted and as models can be quite complex, I use custom ModelBinders to handle the response and building a new model, which won't be directly persisted. Instead, I load the original model from the DB and call a method to update it from the posted from without breaking anything. But this becomes repetitive and maybe there's a better approach.
Examples I've seen are very Model limited and naive, but in our application we may have now 50+ form posting scenarios like this one and growing.
If you want to go the other direction, first create the map to the other direction, Mapper.Map()
Next, you might want to create type converters (Mapper.CreateMap().ConvertUsing()), as sometimes forms can be more...string-y.
Then, you may need to ignore or use destination values. That can be configured with ForMember(entity => entity.Id, opt => opt.Ignore()) or ForMember(entity => entity.ChildCollection, opt => opt.UseDestinationValue()).
Finally, you'll want to use the overload that takes an existing destination object, Mapper.Map(dto, entity).