I develop a simple MVC3 CRUD application - simple controllers / views, which uses WCF service for CRUD data access.
The WCF uses EF4.1 with DbContext, and simple CRUD-style methods: ListEntities, GetEntity(ID), AddEntity (entity), DeleteEntity(ID)
If I develop the MVC application directly with EF, code first, I can annotate properties in the entity classes with validation attributes, and the MVC application will automatically recognize validation errors and report them in the UI when I try to save and a validation error occurs (e.g. a required field is not set).
But in my application I don't use this approach and I face two problems:
My entities in the WCF are generated from the EDMX, which in turn was also generated from the database. So I cannot actually add to them any data validation annotation attributes, because they'll vanish as soon as the entities will be regenerated from the EDMX. Is there any solution to this?
Since my client (MVC app) does not share the data contract classes with WCF (for clear separation), but instead it is generated form service reference, even if I find a way to add data annotation attributes to server-side data contract classes, will they be recognized and recreated when the data contract proxy class is created on client side?
So how could I made the MVC application to use client side validation and error message reporting for validation failures when binding to entities exposed by WCF service as data contracts?
One idea I have is, on client side, to create derived classes for all entities exposed as data contracts, and apply annotation attributes to them to desired properties. But this doesn't looks like a good solution to me, because with this I create a logic "coupling" between UI client and the WCF service / data layer (forcing UI to know about data more than it should do - by putting BL logic in client).
Can anyone give me some suggestions on how to handle those this situation?
Thanks
1: Yes you can add validation using the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.MetaDataType.
I answered this question at MVC Partial Model Updates
2a: What you can do is create a seperate Class Library Assembly that contains all the interfaces (with or without additional MetaDataTypes) and use that on both the WCF service and the MVC application. After you add the reference to your MVC application, when adding the WCF Service reference, you can match the WCF Service DataContacts directly to the interfaces in the Assembly. One Caveat is that both the WCF service and MVC application are dependant on the Assembly (some might consider this tightly coupled) but this should be ok because you are only tightly coupling at the interface level, and whether or not you choose to allow VS to recreate it's own interfaces/classes or reuse what you already created in the Assembly it boils down to the same thing in my opinion.
2b: If you decide not to use a Class Library, I'm pretty sure that the service reference classes are partial, and you can simply create another .cs file with partial classes and add the interfaces as I described in part 1 to the partial classes.
Update
I am currently using Entity Framework to access my database. Entity Framework, like WCF References, classes are Auto-Generated classes will look something similar to:
[EdmEntityTypeAttribute(NamespaceName="MyNameSpace", Name="Info ")]
[Serializable()]
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)]
public partial class Info : EntityObject
{
public static Info CreateInfo (global::System.Int32 id)
{
Info info= new Info ();
info.Id = id;
return info;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public string FavoriteColor { get; set; }
// etc etc
}
In a separate file with the same namespace as the previous partial class, I have created:
[SomeAttribute1]
[AnotherAttribute2]
public partial class Info: IInfo
{
}
So now my auto-generated class is not only based on an Interface I created IInfo so the actual methods are not exposed (because my datatier in MVC returns interfaces), but it also has Attributes (for Data Annotations or whatever).
What I would suggest is instead of putting your data annotations directly on your WCF Service reference class is to use the MetedataType DataAnnotations. This allows you to separate the actual data object with the data annotations validations. Especially helpful if you want to use the same data class with different validations based on whatever (maybe administrators don't have to have a valid favorite color).
For example:
public interface NormalUser
{
[Required]
string Name { get; set; }
[Required]
string FavoriteColor { get; set; }
}
public interface AdminUser
{
[Required]
string Name { get; set; }
string FavoriteColor { get; set; }
}
[MetadataType(typeof(INormalUser))
public class NormalUserInfo : Info { }
[MetadataType(typeof(IAdminUser))
public class AdminUserInfo : Info { }
In this example we have two different classes NormaUserInfo and AdminUserInfo which both have different validations. Each of them have inherited from Info so they are valid models that can be passed into the WCF Service.
Out of my mind, as I can't test it right now...
Let's say your autogenerated code is like this:
public partial class Employee
{
//some code here
}
You can add a new Employee class, also partial, and this one won't be autogenerated
[you can annotate here]
public partial class Employee
{
//somecode here
}
try it
As for the validation, you could use: http://fluentvalidation.codeplex.com/
Related
I have a multi-layered project. Layers are as follows :
Business
DataAccess
Entities
Core
MvcWebUI
I have a Category class in entity layer:
public class Category : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I also have a CategoryValidator class in the business layer:
public class CategoryValidator : AbstractValidator<Category>
{
public CategoryValidator(IEnumerable<Category> categories)
{
RuleFor(x => x.Name).NotEmpty().MaximumLength(50);
}
}
I have a class in the Core layer for validation.
public class ValidatorTool
{
public static void FluentValidate(IValidator validator, object entity)
{
var result = validator.Validate(entity);
if (result.Errors.Any())
throw new ValidationException(result.Errors);
}
}
I'm performing validation in the Business layer with the FluentValidate method.
But I got stuck when it came to the MvcWebUI layer. According to the FluentValidation documentation, I need to apply an attribute to the entity class as follows:
[Validator(typeof(PersonValidator))]
But since the business layer references the entity layer, I can't reach the CategoryValidator class in the entity layer. (circle reference)
How can I solve this problem?
Did I create the layers incorrectly?
Or should I define the entities as a model again in the Web layer?
Please help me.
Firstly, you probably shouldn't be exposing your entities directly in the UI so I'm going to recommend you create new models there and write validators specifically for them.
Assuming this is wired up correctly, this approach means the validators are automatically fired during the HTTP POST in the MVC app and the model state is automatically updated with a list of errors.
I use this approach extensively, albeit in MVC apps that call an internal API.
In the majority of my cases, the MVC client validates the model and if it passes the checks it then calls the API or service layer after with a DTO / service / entity model which is mapped with Automapper.
The MVC validation is typically light and checks for required fields, lengths, etc.
The API does validation again but it does it on the entity and it goes much deeper this time as it checks for duplicates, invalid entity state, etc. .
One last comment that I would like to add. I wouldn't throw exceptions on validation errors. The UI should use ModelState and the service layer returns a result which the client knows how to merge back into ModelState so either scenario results in the users getting a nice list of errors to deal with.
Hope this helps!
Generally you have 2 ways to perform validation:
Validate View Models (used in most cases)
Internal Business Entities validation (which most often used with 1-st)
For 1-st point you validate view models (on client and server), which placed in your Web project. In that case you should place view model validators in Web project too. [Validator(typeof(PersonValidator))] attribute is needed for linking view model parameter of action and action itself to perform validation before action execution. As in documentation:
Internally, FluentValidation’s MVC integration makes use of a validator factory to know how to work out which validator should be used to validate a particular type. By default, FluentValidation ships with an AttributedValidatorFactory that allows you to link a validator to the type that it validates by decorating the class to validate with an attribute that identifies its corresponding validator.
If you want to validate business models (2-nd point), not/not only view models, you need to place entity validators to Business project and register them in your IoC container (example with Castle Windsor), and change validator tool next way:
public class ValidatorTool
{
public static void FluentValidate<T>(IContainer container, T entity) // replace IContainer with your actual container interface name
{
var validator = container.Resolve<IValidator<T>>();
var result = validator.Validate(entity);
if (result.Errors.Any())
throw new ValidationException(result.Errors);
}
}
I'm new to MVC4 framework & been working on an Licensing application that must use different databases for different products (each database contains handful tables for one product - all generated by proprietary licensing tool). My application shall be able to support CRUD functions on various products, thus requiring more than one DbContext objects in relation to different model for each product.
As far as I know, each such DbContext object requires a connection string in the Web.config file. I'm struggling to list (Index.cshtml) existing licences for various products, using DropDownList control, as for each product I'd need to connect to a different database whenever the user choose a different product from the DropDownList control.
Any help will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
As I understand your question, the core issue is you are struggling to connect to a different db, whenever user selects a different product from a DropDownList. As you said, yes DbContext object requires a connection string in the Web.config file. You can specify multiple connection strings in a config.
Also you can definitely pass different connection strings to DBContext constructor. Typically your DAL/Data Access Layer or Repository layer would pull appropriate connection string from the Web.Config/App.config and pass it to the DBContext constructor. See a similar approach here and here.
UPDATE :
You cannot share the same DbContext with multiple databases. You need multiple DbContexts for each of your DB.
Additional
There are few of doing this, but if you use Repostory and Unit Of Work pattern, you can use an approach like this
Each DbContext you going to have, you can associate with set of entities within that database in context. Something like below
public class ProductContext : DbContext
{
public ProductContext ()
: base("connectionStringA")
{
}
public DbSet<Product> Accounts { get; set; }
}
public class LicenceContext : DbContext
{
public LicenceContext ()
: base("connectionStringB")
{
}
public DbSet<Licence> Licenses{ get; set; }
}
I've made a custom model, and I want to mock it. I'm fairly new to MVC, and very new to unit testing. Most approaches I've seen create an interface for the class and then make a mock that implements the same interface. However I can't seem to get this to work when actually passing the interface into the View. Cue "simplified" example:
Model-
public interface IContact
{
void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars);
}
public abstract class Contact : IContact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars = null)
{
//construct email...
}
}
public class Enquiry : Contact
{
//some extra properties...
}
View-
<%# Page Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<project.Models.IContact>" %>
<!-- other html... -->
<td><%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => ((Enquiry)model).Name)%></td>
Controller-
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(IContact enquiry)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return View(enquiry);
enquiry.SendEmail(Request.ServerVariables);
return View("Sent", enquiry);
}
Unit Testing-
[Test]
public void Index_HttpPostInvalidModel_ReturnsDefaultView()
{
Enquiry enquiry = new Enquiry();
_controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "dummy value");
ViewResult result = (ViewResult)_controller.Index(enquiry);
Assert.IsNullOrEmpty(result.ViewName);
}
[Test]
public void Index_HttpPostValidModel_CallsSendEmail()
{
MockContact mock = new MockContact();
ViewResult result = (ViewResult)_controller.Index(mock);
Assert.IsTrue(mock.EmailSent);
}
public class MockContact : IContact
{
public bool EmailSent = false;
void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars)
{
EmailSent = true;
}
}
Upon a HttpPost I get a "Cannot create an instance of an interface" exception. I seems that I can't have my cake (passing a model) and eat it (pass mock for unit testing). Maybe there's a better approach to unit testing models bound to views?
thanks,
Med
I'm going to throw it out there, if you need to mock your models you're doing it wrong. Your models should be dumb property bags.
There is absolutely no reason that your model should have a SendEmail method. That is functionality that should be invoked from a controller calling to an EmailService.
Responding to your question:
After years of working with Separation of Concern (SOC) patterns like MVC, MVP, MVVM and seeing articles from people brighter than me (I wish I could find the one I'm thinking off about this but maybe I read it in a magazine). You will eventually conclude in an enterprise application you will end up with 3 distinct sets of model objects.
Previously I was a very big fan of doing Domain Driven Design (DDD) using a single set of business entities that were both plain old c# objects (POCO) and Persistent Ignorant (PI). Having domain models that are POCO/PI leaves you with a clean slate of objects where there is no code related to accessing the object storage or having other attributes that have schematic meaning for only 1 area of the code.
While this works, and can work fairly well for a period of time, there is eventually a tipping point where the complexity of expressing the relationship between View, Domain Model, and Physical Storage Model becomes too complex to express correctly with 1 set of entities.
To solve the impedance mismatches of View, Domain and Storage you really need 3 sets of models. Your ViewModels will exactly match your views binding to facilitate it to be easy to work with the UI. So this will frequently have things such as adding a List to populate drop downs with values that are valid for your edit view/action.
In the middle is the Domain Entities, these are the entities that you should validate against your business rules. So you will map to/from them on both sides to/from the view and to/from the storage layer. In these entities is where you could attach your code to do validation. I personally am not a fan of using attributes and coupling validation logic into your domain entities. It does make alot of sense to couple validation attributes into your ViewModels to take advantage of the built in MVC client side validation functionality.
For validation I would recommend using a library like FluentValidation (or your own custom one, they're not hard to write) that lets you separate your business rules from your objects. Although with new features with MVC3 you can do remote validation severside and have it display client side, this is an option to handle true business validation.
Finally you have your storage models. As I said previously I was very zealous on having PI objects being able to be reused through all layers so depending on how you setup your durable storage you might be able to directly use your domain objects. But if you take advantage of tools like Linq2Sql, EntityFramework (EF) etc you will most likely have auto generated models with code for interacting with the data provider so you will want to map your domain objects to your persistence objects.
So wrap all of this up this would be a standard logic flow in MVC actions
User goes to edit product page
EF queries the database to get the existing product information, inside the repository layer the EF data objects are mapped to the Business Entities (BE) so all the data layer methods return BEs and have no external coupling to the EF data objects. (So if you ever change your data provider you don't have to alter a single line of code except for the internal implementation)
The controller gets the Product BE and maps it to a Product ViewModel (VM) and adds collections for the different options that can be set for drop down lists
Return View(theview, ProductVM)
User edits the product and submits the form
Client side validation is passed (useful for date validation / number validation instead of having to submit the form for feedback)
The ProductVM gets mapped back to ProductBE at this point you would validate the business rules along the lines ValidationFactory.Validate(ProductBE), if it's invalid return messages back to view and cancel edit, otherwise continue
You pass the ProductBE into your repository model, inside the internal implementation of the data layer you map the ProductBE to the Product Data Entity for EF and update the database.
2016 edit: removed usages of Interface as separation of concerns and interfaces are entirely orthogonal.
Your issue is here:
public ActionResult Index(IContact enquiry)
MVC in the background has to create a concrete type to pass to the method when calling it. In this method's case, MVC needs to create a type which implements IContract.
Which type? I dunno. Neither does MVC.
Instead of using interfaces in order to be able to mock your models, use normal classes that have protected methods which you can override in mocks.
public class Contact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars = null)
{
//construct email...
}
}
public class MockContact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool EmailSent {get;private set;}
public override void SendEmail(NameValueCollection vars = null)
{
EmailSent = true;
}
}
and
public ActionResult Index(Contact enquiry)
It is possible to use interfaces.
See: http://mvcunity.codeplex.com/
I would like to use DataAnnotations for basic client and server-side validation of my MVC ViewModels. My ViewModel looks like this:
public class MyViewModel
{
public Client Client1 { get; set; }
public Client Client2 { get; set; }
public Product Product { get; set; }
}
So I would like to check that both client objects have a name and telephone number, the product object has a valid numeric price, etc.
The problem I have is that both Client and Product are proxy types generated by Visual Studio from a web service, so I can't directly add the annotation attributes to their required properties.
I've read about using the MetadataType attribute to specify the meta data in an alternative class (with duplicate properties), but in this case I can't even add that attribute to the Client and Product classes.
Or can I? In the Web References folder where my VS solution is saved, there is a folder for the web service namespace containing a file called Reference.cs, which contains the VS generated code for the proxy types.
If I add the metadata to the classes in here, will this work—or is messing about with the generated code a really bad idea? Or is there just a simpler, cleaner way to do this?
After a bit of hunting I found that this is actually remarkably simple—it was just a case of my not knowing exactly what to search for!
You don't actually need to add the MetadataType attribute to the original class definition: you can add it to an empty partial class of the same type (make sure your partial class is in the same namespace as the original type).
Then you just create a "buddy" class containing your validation rules as you would normally:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
namespace WebServiceNamespace
{
[MetadataType(typeof(ClientMetaData))]
public partial class Client
{
}
public class ClientMetaData
{
[Required(ErrorMessage = "Please enter a name")]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required(ErrorMessage="Please enter a telephone Number")]
public string Telephone { get; set; }
}
}
This works perfectly with the standard Model Binding and requires no access to the original code for the type, so you can easily set up validation rules with DataAnnotations, even for types which aren't part of your code base.
Modifying the generated code would work, so long as you don't regenerate it and write over your modifications. Other than the chance of losing your work if someone generates the reference, there isn't a reason you can't add the metadata references to the proxy classes.
The other alternative is using custom validation, or create a model that you then map the fields to the proxy objects. Creating a model that isn't based on the Client object would be your safest method.
I think it would be cleaner to create a model and then map the fields using AutoMapper and/or Model Generator Helper ( http://modelhelper.codeplex.com/ ).
I have a 4 layered web application programmed in C#... .Net 4.0:
UI Layer
Business Layer
Data access Layer
Entities layer
My data layer contains an edmx
My entities layer contains my POCO objects (generated by a t4 script), and that layer is referenced in all other layers.
When creating an MVC form to create a new customer, for example.... I already have the customer class with fields for first name, last name, etc in my entities layer, but that auto-generated POCO class does not have data annotations for validation... I.E. [Required], etc. for when the form is submitted
My solution right now is to create new model classes that are pretty much the same as my poco classes but also have these additional validation annotations.
What I want to know is if theres an easy way to use certain POCO objects in the MVC model (in the UI layer) without having to almost rewrite the class... and also without modifying the t4 that generates these POCO classes (since I'm not up to speed on t4).
I saw this from another post on stackoverflow http://automapper.codeplex.com/ ... not sure if this will do it or is the best solution.
If your POCO class is declared as such:
public class Person {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
then if you just change the T4 to make it a partial class, you can then define in a separate file:
[MetadataType(typeof(PersonMetadata))]
public partial class Person {
internal class PersonMetadata {
[Required]
// insert other metadata here
public string FirstName { get; set; }
// and if you don't want metadata for lastname, you can leave it out
}
}
Two extra points - the metadata class doesn't have to be nested in the partial you define, I think it's neater though. Also, the types don't have to match in the metadata class, so you could make them all object if you wanted to (and you might see some examples on the web with it like this)
Modifying a T4 template is not very hard at all. I recently faced the same issue and decided to read up on T4 a bit and then modify the template to create the generated properties the way I need them (annotations, and in my case with NotifyPropertyChange etc. as I use the same POCO objects in an MVC UI and in a Silverlight UI).
Even though you're looking for a solution that doesn't require modifying T4, I hope this is useful.