I'm struggling, a bit, with MVC / Razor / Entity Framework.
I need to create an object which references a parent object. I have a field in my model, called ParentID, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to populate it with the parent's ID.
I'm thinking I need a hidden-field in my view, and then maybe place the ParentID in the ViewBag, and point that ViewBag property to the hidden field, but I can't seem to get that to work.
Something like this, was my assumption:
#Html.Hidden("BladeID", ViewBag.ParentBlade)
I'm not sure I've explained myself very well, so please ask away, and I'll expand.
Also, I'm not sure I'm doing this the correct way. This is all very new to me, coming from webforms.
If the ParentID is already in the model, why not populate the hidden field directly from there?
#Html.Hidden("BladeID", Model.ParentID)
If you really want to populate it from the ViewBag you'll have tot cast it back to int (assuming that's the type of ParentID), because the ViewBag is of type dynamic:
#Html.Hidden("BladeID", (int)ViewBag.ParentBlade)
UPDATE based on comments
If your view depends on two (or more) separate model classes you can always opt for creating custom a view model for that view, something like:
public class ParentChildViewModel
{
public Blade Parent { get; set; }
public Blade Child { get; set; }
}
and then use that class as the model in your view:
#model ParentChildViewModel
// more view code here
#Html.Hidden("BladeID", Model.Child.ParentID)
That said, there is, in my opinion, nothing wrong in using the ViewBag in this case, particularly if all you need is one property.
Related
I have the following model:-
[MetadataType(typeof(TMSServer_Validation))]
[Bind(Exclude = "TMSRack,ServerModel")]
public partial class TMSServer
{
}
and I have the following drop down inside my view:-
#Html.DropDownListFor(model =>model.Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID, ((IEnumerable<TMS.Models.DataCenter>)ViewBag.DataCenters).Select(option => new SelectListItem {
Text = (option == null ? "None" : option.Name),
Value = option.ID.ToString(),
Selected = (Model.Server.TMSRack != null) && (option.ID == Model.Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID)
}), "Choose...")
Then on my controller class I have the following :-
ViewBag.Racks = repository.getrelatedracks(Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID);
But since I have excluded the TMSRack navigation property (mainly to avoid over-posting attacks), so the Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID will always be null. And to get its value I wrote the following:-
ViewBag.Racks = repository.getrelatedracks(Int32.Parse( Request.Form["Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID"]));
But I know that using Request.Form is not the right approach to follow, so my question is there a way to get the excluded property using more reliable way ?
Thanks
My answer is going to assume TMSServer is a domain model.
With that in mind, this is the perfect example of when to use a view model. By using a view model instead, you have complete control over how the properties are mapped from the view model to the domain model. Something like:
public class RackViewModel
{
public int DataCenterID
// other Rack properties
}
Then either send a list of RackViewModel to your view, or create a view model that encompasses all of that, too:
public class ContainerViewModel
{
public List<RackViewModel> Racks { get; set; }
// other view-specific properties
}
Now, when you POST the data back, not only do you have complete control over what properties you want to bind to your view models, you also have complete control over the mapping that takes place from converting your view models to domain models.
The bottom-line is this: if your view accepts a view model that only allows the user to POST the data they should be allowed to POST, over-posting doesn't even exist. Well-designed view models, or even making the distinction between a view model and an input model (i.e. a separate model that represents the data you want to bind back to in your action), eliminates over-posting entirely.
Over-posting only exists because you're not restricting the model binding process enough. If you ask it to bind to a class that has 10 properties in it when you only need 3 you're allowing the user to potentially stuff data into those other 7 properties.
This is one reason why view models are so popular. They allow you to narrow the scope of your view, whilst also narrowing the scope of the model binder. That leaves you free to properly manage the process of mapping from your view model to your domain model, without introducing a vulnerability.
Update
As you don't want to go the view model approach, your idea will work but you can do it slightly differently. Something along the lines of:
public ActionResult SomeAction(SomeModel model, TMSRack rack)
Where:
SomeModel is the type of model you're decorating with Bind(Exclude...) (it's not obvious what type that is from your question.
TMSRack is the type I assume you want to bind to.
As TMSRack is defined in your main model anyway, as long as you're using the Html.* helpers, it will have the correct names generated for it on the form in order to bind straight back to it as a separate parameter on your action. Then you can do whatever you want with it, without resorting to Request.Form.
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.
i have this problem that has been buggin me for the last hours.
Lets suppose i have this Signup form, that i need to fill it up, all propertieshave the RequiredAttribute, the model is a EF entity named "User".
i have this second edit account details form, and at this moment a specific field ("Username") is no longer required, because i already have it, the user doesnt need to fil it again and in matter of fact it doest enven show up on the Edit form.
The problem:
when posting the second Edit form, obviously i am stucked with the Username RequiredAttribute.
I would solve this just by adding a "Bind" attribute with "Exclude" option, BUT, this is my current model :
public class AccountDetailsModel
{
public User user { get; set; }
public string NEWPASSWORD1 { get; set; } // new password
public string NEWPASSWORD2 { get; set; } // new password comparison
}
and just looks like Bind Attribute with Exclude option doesnt handle complex Model types. I cant get it to work on this scenario.
Im stuck, scratching my heads for a long time now...
How can i overcome this?
I just want to re-use my EF Entity (User) on 2 different views along with its DataAnnotations.
Thanks in advance.
I just want to re-use my EF Entity (User) on 2 different views along with its DataAnnotations.
Here's the problem. You shouldn't do this. I would recommend you setting up view models which are classes specifically tailored for a given view and contain the necessary validation attributes for this view only. To ease the mapping between your EF models and the view models you could use AutoMapper.
Put the UserName in a hidden input field for the details page.
I am using ASP.NET MVC. My requirement is to build a complex object (an object made of other object) through a step-by-step procedure like in a wizard.
Every dependent object shall be build on it's step and shall be validated in it's step. For example
public class ComplexObjectModel {
public Object1 MyObject1 { get; set; }
public Object2 MyObject1 { get; set; }
public Object3 MyObject1 { get; set; }
}
As there is no built-in facility for a wizard I have decided to create 3 model classes and 3 strong typed partial views binded to these models.
On every step of my pseudo wizard I validate the dependent model object and set the property of the complex object to its reference.
I was thinking to save the complex object inside the ViewData/TempData in the following way
In the controller action
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult MyAction1() {
ComplexObjectModel com = (ComplexObjectModel)ViewData["ComplexObjectModel"];
com.MyObject1 = new Object1();
ViewData["ComplexObjectModel"] = com;
return PartialView( "MyAction2", com.Object1 );
}
and in the View
<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %>
<%= Html.Hidden("ComplexObjectModel", ViewData["ComplexObjectModel"]) %>
... view fields for Object1, Object n ....
<% } %>
But doing this way the object is not passed back-and-forth between the view and the controller and I have experienced that is null when it comes back from the view to the next action.
Is there a way to support this requirement?
thanks for helping
There are a couple of ways I might tackle this.
First; I might decide to store all this in the session object. I am assuming here that the models are quite large and so I wouldn't want them stored on the view and passed back each time I go to the next page.
Second; I might store them in the database and if the wizard didn't complete then delete them as part of a background process.
The one thing I wouldn't do is pass the complex object to each view. The view should really need to know anything about any other view in a restful world and so I'd be inclined not to do it.
Of course that does mean you need to decide a storage place for the data. If I had a Large objcect then I'd choose the database and if was fairly small then I'd choose the session object.
As you have already found, having all the data for each object in each view can be problematic.
However, if you are determined to do this the View way then here is what I'd do;
Create a partial view which deals
only with each object in the complex
model.
On each view, include all three, or
more, of the partial views.
For each partial view which is not
an active participant in the view,
place it within a div that is
hidden.
At least then when you change a property, or add one, you simply set it in the partial view once and not three times. Also if there is an error, you can unhide the divs and see if the data is coming in.
Also each field should then have the id of ModelName.Property so that the controller knows where the property is.
<%= Html.TextBox("MyObject1.MyProperty1", value) %>
Then in the controller you simply do, and this off the cuff;
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult MyAction1(ComplexObjectModel complexModel) {
You could take a look at MVC Futures Html.Serialize helper method which allows you to keep state into a hidden field between the controller actions in a similar way classic WebForms does it.
I have settled on trying to use ASP.NET MVC but the first part I want to replace is the Model. I am using LLBL Pro for the model.
I have a table called "Groups" that is a simple look up table. I want to take thhe results of the table and populate a list in MVC. Something that should be very simple... or so I thought.... I've tried all kinds of things as I was getting errors like:
The model item passed into the dictionary is of type 'System.Collections.Generic.List1[glossary.EntityClasses.GroupEntity]', but this dictionary requires a model item of type 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable1[glossary.CollectionClasses.GroupCollection]'.
private GroupCollection gc = new GroupCollection();
public ActionResult Index()
{
gc.GetMulti(null);
return View( gc.?????? );
}
This is all I am trying to do, I've tried lots of variations, but my goal is simply to take the data and display it.
Not sure if this would work, but you could try wrapping the EntityCollection into a ViewModel class and passing it to the View like so:
public class GroupsViewModel()
{
public GroupCollection Groups { get; set; }
// other items in your view model could go here
}
then convert your controller method to
public ActionResult Index()
{
GroupCollection gc = new GroupCollection();
gc.GetMulti(null);
GroupsViewModel vm = new GroupsViewModel();
vm.Groups = gc;
return View(vm);
}
I like this approach because each ViewModel is an object in-and-of itself.
You can use the AsEnumerable extension where your ????? are or change the type of your ViewUserControl(in the markup) to be of type System.Collections.Generic.List. Basically what you need to correct is the mismatch between the type of the View and the Model being passed in.
I'm not sure about your exact error, but I'd venture a guess that one of two things are happenging:
You are making some sort of invalid / illegal call on your LLBLGen object. If this is the case make sure you are setting it up right / calling right method / property etc.
The model you are passing to the veiw is too hairy for it to deal with. In this case, and in general, you should create a light 'View Model' class with just the data you want displayed and populate it from your LLBLGen object first then pass it to the view, which will be able to easily handle your view model class.
Here are some references:
http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2009/04/13/asp.net-mvc-tip-50-ndash-create-view-models.aspx
http://nerddinnerbook.s3.amazonaws.com/Part6.htm
http://www.codinginstinct.com/2008/10/view-model-inheritance.html
Stemming off what Yuriy said, it looks like your view is strongly typed to a "collection" of a collection of your groupentity, and you are trying to pass just the collection of your groupentities. Make sure your "collection" type (IEnumerable, IList, etc) matches what type of collection you are sending in your controller, along with the type of the actual object in the collection.
View:
System.Collections.Generic.List1[glossary.EntityClasses.GroupEntity]
Controller:
System.Collections.Generic.List1[glossary.EntityClasses.GroupEntity]
Just a thought