public class TagVM
{
public string TagName { get; set; }
}
public class TagListVM
{
public List<TagVM> TagList { get; set; }
public TagListVM()
{
TagList = new List<TagVM>();
}
}
Why do we use TagListVM constructor and what is purpose of it?
Without the constructor TagList will be null (unless you initialize it elsewhere).
for more refer this Model with constructor vs. Model without constructor ASP.NET MVC
I have 3 domain models - Item, ItemProductLine, and ProductLine. Each of these map to already existing database tables. I also have a view model that I use in my view.
Domain models:
public class Item
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public string itemDescription { get; set; }
public float unitPrice { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
}
public class ItemProductLine
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public String productLineId { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ProductLine productLine { get; set; }
}
public class ProductLine
{
public string productLineId { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
// more fields
}
View model:
public class ItemViewModel
{
public string itemNumber { get; set; }
public String itemDescription { get; set; }
public Double unitPrice { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
}
My current query is:
from item in dbContext.Items
where unitPrice > 10
select new ItemViewModel()
{
itemNumber = item.itemNumber
itemDescription = item.itemDescription
unitPrice = item.unitPrice
productLine = item.itemProductLine.productLine.productLine
}
I currently have this query in the controller, but I am refactoring the code. I want to put the query code in a repository class in a data access layer. From what I've read, I should not reference any view models in that layer. If I change select new ItemViewModel() to select new Item(), it will return the error:
The entity or complex type 'proj.DAL.Item' cannot be constructed in a LINQ to Entities query.
A solution I have seen is to create a data transfer object (DTO) to transfer data from my domain model to my view model.
However, by doing this, I would have 3 copies of the data. If I need to add another database field and display it, I need to update 3 files. I believe I am violating the DRY principle. Is it inevitable to violate the DRY principle when using DTOs and view models? If not, can you provide an example of how to refactor this to have DRY code?
Having multiple models is not a DRY violation however your code breaks the Separation of Concerns principle because the domain model is the same with (or built upon, read: coupled to) persistence model. You should keep your models separated for each layer and use a tool like automapper to map them. This prevents the model to serve more than one purpose.
It looks like repeating yourself, but in fact you are keeping your layers decoupled and ensuring code maintainability.
Unlike ramiramulu, I would refrain from introducing too many abstractions.
If you use EF, your DAL is actually Entity Framework, no need to abstract that. A lot of people attempts to do this but this only complicates your code a lot, for no gain. If you were doing SQL requests and calling stored procedures directly, then a DAL would be helpful, but building an abstraction on top of EF (which is another abstraction, or over NHibernate) is a bad idea.
Also, pure DTOs as an abstraction are more and more frown upon, but they can be used if you have a middleware and do not directly access the database - for example, a message bus like NServiceBus: messages would be considered DTOs in that case.
Unless you do very simple and pure CRUD (in which case, go ahead, put the logic in controllers - no reason to add complexity for pretty straightforward business), you should move business logic outside of your controllers for sure. For this you have many options, but 2 of the most popular are : a rich domain model with domain driven design or rich business services with service oriented design. They are a lot of ways to do this, but these 2 illustrates very different approaches.
Rich Domain (Controller per Aggregate)
In the first case, your controller would be responsible for acquiring the domain object, calling the logic, and returning a View Model. They do the bridge between the View world and the Model world. How to acquire the domain object(s) needs to be somewhat abstracted, often simple virtual methods works great - keep it simple.
Aggregate Root:
public class Item
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public string itemDescription { get; set; }
public float unitPrice { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
// Example of logic, should always be in your aggregate and not in ItemProductLine for example
public void UpdatePrice(float newPrice)
{
// ... Implement logic
}
}
View Model:
public class ItemViewModel
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string itemNumber { get; set; }
public String itemDescription { get; set; }
public Double unitPrice { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
}
Controller:
public class ItemController : Controller
{
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
var item = GetById(id);
// Some logic to map to the VM, maybe automapper, valueinjector, etc.
var model = item.MapTo<ItemViewModel>();
return View(model);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(int id, ItemViewModel model)
{
// Do some validation
if (!model.IsValid)
{
View("Edit", model); // return edit view
}
var item = GetById(model.id);
// Execute logic
item.UpdatePrice(model.unitPrice);
// ... maybe more logic calls
Save(item);
return RedirectToAction("Edit");
}
public virtual Item GetById(int id)
{
return dbContext.Items.Find(id);
}
public virtual bool Save(Item item)
{
// probably could/should be abstracted in a Unit of Work
dbContext.Items.Update(item);
dbContext.Save();
}
}
This works great with logic that trickles down and are very model specific. It is also great when you do not use CRUD and are very action-based (e.g. a button to update only the price compared to an edit page where you can change all item values). It is pretty decoupled and the separation of concerns is there - you can edit and test business logic on their own, you can test controllers without a backend (by overriding the virtual functions), and you do not have hundreds of abstractions built on one another. You might roll out the virtual function in a repository class, but by experience you always have very specific filters and concerns that are controller/view dependent, and often you end up with one controller per aggregate root, so controllers are a good place for them (e.g. .GetAllItemsWithAPriceGreaterThan(10.0))
In an architecture like that, you have to be careful about boundaries. For example, you could have a Product controller/aggregate and want to list all Items related to that product, but it should be read-only - you couldn't call any business on Items from Products - you need to navigate to the Item controller for that. The best way to do this is to automatically map to the ViewModel :
public class ProductController : Controller
{
// ...
public virtual IEnumerable<ItemViewModel> GetItemsByProductId(int id)
{
return dbContext.Items
.Where(x => ...)
.Select(x => x.MapTo<ItemViewModel>())
.ToList();
// No risks of editing Items
}
}
Rich Services (Controller per Service)
With rich services, you build a more service oriented abstraction. This is great when business logic spawns multiple boundaries and models. Services play the role of the bridge between the View and the Model. They should NEVER expose the underlying Models, only specific ViewModels (which play the role of DTO in that case). This is very good when you have a MVC site and some REST WebApi working on the same dataset for example, they can reuse the same services.
Model:
public class Item
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public string itemDescription { get; set; }
public float unitPrice { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
}
View Model:
public class ItemViewModel
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string itemNumber { get; set; }
public String itemDescription { get; set; }
public Double unitPrice { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
}
Service:
public class ItemService
{
public ItemViewModel Load(int id)
{
return dbContext.Items.Find(id).MapTo<ItemViewModel>();
}
public bool Update(ItemViewModel model)
{
var item = dbContext.Items.Find(model.id);
// update item with model and check rules/validate
// ...
if (valid)
{
dbContext.Items.Update(item);
dbContext.Save();
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Controller:
public class ItemController : Controller
{
public ItemService Service { get; private set; }
public ItemController(ItemService service)
{
this.Service = service;
}
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
return View(Service.Load(id));
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(int id, ItemViewModel model)
{
// Do some validation and update
if (!model.IsValid || !Service.Update(model))
{
View("Edit", model); // return edit view
}
return RedirectToAction("Edit");
}
}
Controllers are only there to call the Service(s) and compose the results for the Views. They are "dumb" compared to domain oriented controllers, but if you have a lot of views complexities (tons of composed views, ajax, complex validation, json/xml processing along side html, etc.), this is the preferred approach.
Also, in this case, services do not have to related to only one model. The same service could manipulate multiple model types if they share business logic. So an OrderService could access the inventory and make adjustments there, etc. They are more process-based than model-based.
I would do it this way -
My Domain Model -
public class Item
{
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
}
public class ItemProductLine : ProductLine
{
// more fields
}
public class ProductLine
{
// more fields
}
DAL Would be -
public class ItemRepository
{
public Item Fetch(int id)
{
// Get Data from Database into Item Model
}
}
BAL would be -
public class ItemBusinessLayer
{
public Item GetItem(int id)
{
// Do business logic here
DAL.Fetch(10);
}
}
Controller would be -
public class ItemController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index(int id)
{
Item _item = BAL.GetItem(10);
ItemViewModel _itemViewModel = AutomapperExt.Convert(_item); // something where automapper will be invoked for conversion process
return View(_itemViewModel);
}
}
Automapper will be maintained in a separate class library.
The main reason why I choose this way is that, for a particular business there can be any number of applications/frontends, but their business domain models shouldn't change. So my BAL is not going to change. It returns business domains itself. Thats doesn't mean everytime I need to return Item model, instead I will have MainItemModel, MiniItemModel etc., all these models will server business requirements.
Now it is the responsibility of frontend (probably controllers) to decide which BAL method to be invoked and how much data to be used on frontend.
Now some devs might argue, that UI shouldn't be having that judgement capacity to decide how much data to use and what data to see, instead BAL should have that power to make decision. I agree and that happens in BAL itself if our domain model is strong and flexible. If security is main constraint and domain models are very rugged, then we can have the automapper conversion at BAL itself. Or else simply have it on UI side. End of the day, MVC is all about making code more manageable, cleaner, reusable and comfortable.
For a .Net MVC application, is it bad practice to have a View Model with methods in it that fill the View Model such as this -
public class MyViewModelClass
{
public string MyProperty1 { get; set; }
public string MyProperty2 { get; set; }
public string GetProperties()
{
this.MyProperty1 = DataRetriever.GetProperty1();
this.MyProperty2 = DataRetriever.GetProperty2();
}
}
Can this cause problems in MVC such as with posting from the view?
Yes it is considered bad practice. A view model should be a DTO that contains no logic but only transport data
I have a layered application that send commands to the business layer (actually, the application is based on ncqrs framework, but I don't think it's important here).
A command looks like this :
public class RegisterUserCommand : CommandBase
{
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string Email{ get; set; }
public DateTime RegistrationDate { get; set; }
public string ApiKey {get; set;} // edit
}
There is no logic in this class, only data.
I want to have the users type their user name, email and I want the system to use the current date to build the command.
What is best between :
create a strongly typed view based on the RegisterUserCommand, then inject the date and the APi Key just before sending it to the business layer ?
create a RegisterUserViewModel class, create the view with this class and create the command object based on the view input ?
I wrote the following code (for the solution n°2) :
public class RegisterController : Controller
{
//
// GET: /Register/
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View();
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(RegisterUserViewModel registrationData)
{
var service = NcqrsEnvironment.Get<ICommandService>();
service.Execute(
new RegisterUserCommand
{
RegistrationDate = DateTime.UtcNow,
Email= registrationData.Email,
UserName= registrationData.Name,
ApiKey = "KeyFromConfigSpecificToCaller" // edit
}
);
return View();
}
public class RegisterUserViewModel
{
[Required]
[StringLength(16)]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(64)]
public string Email{ get; set; }
}
}
This code is working... but I wonder if I choose the correct way...
thanks for advises
[Edit] As the Datetime seems to cause misunderstanding, I added another property "ApiKey", that should also be set server side, from the web layer (not from the command layer)
[Edit 2] try the Erik suggestion and implement the 1st solution I imagined :
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(RegisterUserCommand registrationCommand)
{
var service = NcqrsEnvironment.Get<ICommandService>();
registrationCommand.RegistrationDate = DateTime.UtcNow;
registrationCommand.ApiKey = "KeyFromConfigSpecificToCaller";
service.Execute(
registrationCommand
);
return View();
}
... Is it acceptable ?
I think you would be better off with option #2, where you would have a separate ViewModel and a Command. While it may seem redundant (to an extent), your commands are really messages from your web server to your command handler. Those messages may not be formatted the same as your ViewModel, nor should they be. And if you're using NCQRS as is, you would then have to map your commands to your AR methods and constructors.
While it may save you a little bit of time, I think you pigeon-hole yourself in to modeling your domain after your ViewModels, and that should not be the case. Your ViewModels should be a reflection of what your user experiences and sees; your domain should be a reflection of your business rules and knowledge, and are not always reflected in your view.
It may seem like a bit more work now, but do yourself a favor and keep your commands separate from your view models. You'll thank yourself later.
I hope this helps. Good luck!
I would recommend putting this into the constructor of the RegisterUserCommand class. That way the default behavior is always to set it to DateTime.UtcNow, and if you need to set it to something explicitly you can just add it to the object initializer. This will also help in scenarios where you're using this class in other parts of your project, and you forget to set the RegistrationDate explicitly.
public class RegisterUserCommand : CommandBase
{
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string Email{ get; set; }
public DateTime RegistrationDate { get; set; }
public RegisterUserCommand()
{
RegistrationDate = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
}
And the Controller
public class RegisterController : Controller
{
//
// GET: /Register/
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View();
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(RegisterUserViewModel registrationData)
{
var service = NcqrsEnvironment.Get<ICommandService>();
service.Execute(
new RegisterUserCommand
{
Email= registrationData.Email,
OpenIdIdentifier = registrationData.OpenIdIdentifier
}
);
return View();
}
public class RegisterUserViewModel
{
[Required]
[StringLength(16)]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(64)]
public string Email{ get; set; }
}
}
I would use number 1 and use the system.componentmodel.dataannotations.metadatatype for validation.
I created an example (answer) for another SO question Here.
This allows you to keep your model in another library, validate the fields and show the fields like you would internal/private classes with DataAnnotations. I'm not a big fan of creating a completely separate class for a view that has no additional value while having to ORM the data back to another class. (If you had additional values like dropdown list values, or default values then I think it would make sense).
Instead of
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(RegisterUserViewModel registrationData)
{
var service = NcqrsEnvironment.Get<ICommandService>();
service.Execute(
new RegisterUserCommand
{
RegistrationDate = DateTime.UtcNow,
Email= registrationData.Email,
UserName= registrationData.Name,
ApiKey = "KeyFromConfigSpecificToCaller" // edit
}
);
return View();
}
You can have
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(RegisterUserCommand registrationData)
{
var service = NcqrsEnvironment.Get<ICommandService>();
registrationData.ApiKey = "KeyFromConfigSpecificToCaller";
service.Execute(registrationData);
return View();
}
I have the following ViewModel and i would like to create a custom binder to bind subclasses (LogOnModel, ChangePasswordModel).
public class LogOnViewModel
{
public string NextStep { get; set; }
public string PreviousStep { get; set; }
public string ReturnUrl { get; set; }
public bool MustChangePassword { get; set; }
public bool MustAgreeNewPrivacyStatement { get; set; }
public LogOnModel logOnModel { get; set; }
public ChangePasswordModel changePasswordModel { get; set; }
}
I was able to create my custom binder (inherit from DefaultModelBinder) but never was able to get a full VALIDATED model (ModelState populated) back into my controller. It's working fine for simple type (string, bool, ....) but a bit more complicated with complex type (subclass).
Is MVC 3 Futures the answer to my question or someone was able to override DefaultModelbinder to bind subclasses?
Thanks,
Michel
You will have to create custom model binders for LogOnModel and ChangePasswordModel as well; your custom model binder doesn't know automatically how to bind your complex types.