I have a create page and an edit page for an entity. The pages are similar so I have a base view model which contains common fields between the pages, and a view model for each page which inherit from the base.
One of the differences between the two pages is that the create page has a search form where the user can enter criteria and search using an ajax query. The search criteria fields are not part of the entity. I created a "SearchCriteria" sub model with its own properties for the different search criteria so that I could simply post this model when performing the search, and potentially add more search criteria in the future without having to modify method parameters.
It turns out I do need to add something else, but that something else is one of the properties of the base view model. I'm not sure what the best way do this is. I'm thinking that I will have to consider the property to be no longer common and move it into my Edit view model and my SearchCriteria model, but then I lose my common mapping to the entity and will have to repeat code.
I think I may have gone wrong somewhere so some design advice would be appreciated.
Thanks
I have faced a similar problem. First, with the search functionality. You can create a SearchServiceController. Then, add a partial view and pass it a model when you want to display the search bar, otherwise pass null and display nothing. This way you separate concerns by keeping the search functionality in its own process.
As far as adding a property that won't be used, I don't feel that this presents much of a problem. The .NET framework is filled with subclasses that do not implement parts of the base. Instead, you can throw a NotImplementedException. To me, its well worth the trade off to gain consistency and DRY.
Personally, I have found sharing viewmodels between controllers to not be a good thing (but in this case you may be using a single controller). Using IoC with Ninject, I get plenty of Cyclical Redundancy errors when binding my interfaces to the same viewmodels across controllers. For this reason, I took out Ninject. But, perhaps you can bind at another layer...have not tried it.
Related
I have read online that it is bad practice to use a "kitchen sink" model:
Rule #3 – The View dictates the design of the ViewModel. Only what is
required to render a View is passed in with the ViewModel.
If a Customer object has fifty properties, but one component only
shows their name, then we create a custom ViewModel type with only
those two properties.
Jimmy Bogard's subsequent explanation of how this is good, however, left me a little questioning. It'd be so easy to have my Model just contain a list of Customers, I could even use my POCO's.
So now I get to create custom little view model fragments for every page on the site? Every page that uses a Customer property would get one, but of course could not be shared since some of the information is extraneous, if one page used Age but not Name, for example. Two new mini view model classes right?
This is very time consuming, and seems like it'll lead to a million little custom view models - can someone elaborate as to the utility of this approach and why the easier approach is bad?
View model class can be used not only to transfer values, but it also defines data types (data annotations), validation rules and relations different then ones used in model. Some advantages that come to my mind right now:
There are different validation rules when you change user's password,
change his basic data or his subscription setting. It can be
complicated to define all these rules in one model class. It looks
much better and cleaner when different view models are used.
Using view model can also give you performance advantages. If you
want to display user list, you can define view model with id and name
only and use index to retrieve it from database. If you retrieved
whole objects and pass it to view, you transfer more data from
database than you need to.
You can define display, and editor templates for view models and reuse them on different pages using html helpers. It looks much worse, when you define templates for model POCOs.
If you would use your POCO objects as view models, you would essentially be showing your private objects and break the encapsulation. This in turn would make your model hard to change without altering the corresponding views.
Your data objects may contain details that are appropriate only to the data access layer. If you expose those things to the view, someone might alter those values that you did not expect to be altered and cause bugs.
Many of the same reasons as for having private members in OO languages apply to this reasoning. That being said, it's still very often broken because it's a lot of extra work to create all these "throw-away" models that only gets used once. There exists frameworks for creating these sorts of models, though the name eludes me, that can tie objects together and pick out the interesting properties only which takes away some of the drudgery from creating specific view models.
Your View Model tells the View how data should be shown. It expresses the model. I don't think its necessary to have two view models unless you have two ways to express your model. Just because you have two pages, doesn't mean you will be showing the data any different way, so I wouldn't waste time making two mini View Models when it can be in one reusable view model, Imagine if later you have a page that needs Name and Age, you would create another view model? It's absolutely silly. However, if you had two pages both showing 'Age' and it needed to be shown in a different way, then I would create another one.
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.
This is possibly a bit of a stupid question, but I am getting confused due to the ASP.NET MVC book I am currently reading...
Working with Linq-To-SQL it seems to say that it is not good practice to pass the Linq-to-SQL objects straight to the controller, but that each object should be modelled separately first and this should be passed between the controller and the repository.
Say, I have a database of products. Linq-to-SQl creates a product class for me with Name, Price and Whatnotelse properties. I could pass that straight from repository to controller and then view, but instead it seems to recommend that I use and third class, say Product_Entity, with also Name, Price etc. properties and pass that to the controller.
I fail to see the benefit of this approach, except possibly for adding attributes to the properties... But apart from that it seems to have more drawbacks than benefits. Say each product has manufacturer information as well, I don't see how I can model that easily in my third class.
Is this approach really best practice? Or did I misunderstand all that? If so, why is it bad to work straight off the linq-to-sql generated objects? And how do you deal with relationships between objects in y
The huge benefit to this other class you create is that, to use your example, it doesn't necessarily map to either a product or a manufacturer. Think about it like this:
Your Linq to SQL classes are meant for talking in the "data" domain.
Your "data" classes (the ones you're having trouble with) are meant for talking in the "application" domain.
Let's take an example. Suppose in your MVC application you wanted to show a grid of information about products. You want to see their Name, Price (from the Product table) and their Country of Manufacture and Manufacturer name (from the Manufacturer table). What would you name this class? Product_Manufacturer? What if later on you wanted to add properties from yet a third table such as product discounts? Instead of thinking about these objects in purely the data domain, think about them with regard to your application.
So instead of Product_Manufacturer, what about calling it ProductSummaryItem? Each property of the ProductSummaryItem class would map 1:1 with a field shown in your grid on the UI. Your controller would perform the mapping between the information in the data domain (Product, Manufacturer) with the custom class you'd created in the application domain (ProductSummaryItem).
By doing this, you get some awesome benefits:
1) Writing your views becomes really, really simple. All you have to do to display your data is loop through the ProductSummaryItems and wrap them in and tags, and you're done. It also allows for simple aggregation. Say for example you wanted to add a field called ProductsSoldLastYear to your ProductSummaryItem class. You could do that very simply in your views because all it is to them is another property.
2) Since the view is trivial and there's mapping logic in the controller, it becomes much easier to test the controller's output because it's customized to what the view is going to see.
3) Since the ProductSummaryItem class only has the data it needs, your queries can potentially become much faster because they only need to query for the fields that would populate your ProductSummaryItem object, and nothing else. This overhead can become overbearing the more data-domain objects make up your ProductSummaryItem object.
This pattern is called Model View ViewModel (MVVM) and is hugely popular with MVC as well as in frameworks like WPF.
The argument against MVVM is that you have to somewhat reimplement simple classes for CRUD operations. Fair enough, I guess, but you can use a tool like automapper to help out with things like that. I think you'll find fairly quickly, though, that using the MVVM pattern even for CRUD pays dividends, because before you know it, even with simple classes, you'll start wishing you had extra fields which can easily drive your views.
This might be similar to ASP.NET MVC - Populate Commonly Used Dropdownlists.
I want to populate DropDownLists. Some of it is static data. Some of it comes from the Database. A couple of times I found myself forgetting to call the code that populates my lists and sets the ViewBag accordingly. It is almost worth adding a unit test for this. The only way I think that this suits a unit test is if you place it in model/service. Is there a best practice for this kind of thing?
I'd suggest that the data is contained within the model but is perhaps constructed by a html.helper method. this way, you keep the plumbing markup out of the view and leave the controller free to invoke the neccesary view and model.
You could also of course hand it off to a partialview with an <IList<SelectList>> model.
cats and their skin :)
If you follow the spirit of the pattern then the Model should supply the View with everything it needs to present to the user that's not static. If you have static dropdown lists then you could say that these could be constructed within the mark-up. If you are passing a SelectList to the View from your Action then I'd stick it in the Model to make things simpler and more coherent.
My rule of thumb is that the data must somehow be in the model, either as a ready to use SelectList or at worst in some container that can easily be turned into a SelectList using a LINQ-to-object call.
The bottom line is that the view should never contain any non trivial code.
EDIT (answer to your comment):
I try not to put too much code in models. Models are more like a simple bunch of data gathered by the controller and used by the view.
Regarding simple and/or common things such as the days of week, I believe an HTML helper is the most elegant solution. See WayneC's answer in this question.
I am wondering if it is a good idea or bad, placing things like a List of countries in ViewModel, for binding to a drop down list? For example on a site's Registration page.
I was under the impression that a ViewModel is supposed to represent an instance of the filled out form, but I think I may be wrong as I have seen other people put things like lists in their ViewModel.
Would it not be better to put it in a static class somewhere and called directly from the View?
Like CommonData.ListCountries(); and then using Lambda to convert to SelectList item list in the view Directly?
As you've realized there are a variety of ways to accomplish your goal. While the MVC design pattern encourages certain application organizations how you organize your models, views and controllers is ultimately a matter of preference.
Scott Allen discusses his preference for dealing with ASP.NET MVC drop down lists in a blog post. Scott uses an extension method to convert an enumerable of a complex type into an IEnumerable<SelectListItem> on his model. He then describes that upon post back ASP.NET MVC will not be returning the IEnumerable<SelectListItem> he sent to the view, but only the value the user selected. He then suggests that utilizing two models can simplify things.
This is a reasonable description of what I refer to as ViewModels and FormModels. A ViewModel carries the display data to the view and a FormModel is used for carrying collected data back to a controller action. To explain further:
ViewModels contain data that help render views. By organizing my ViewModels this way I can place all necessary information to render a particular view into an associated model. This prevents me from having to use ViewData for anything that's not truly temporary.
FormModels are used to gather user input. FormModels (almost) never contain references to other complex types and are made up of primitives, DateTimes, and strings.
In either case I have a hard rule to never reuse a model for a different view. Having your models closely aligned with the views used to render them makes your views easier to write. You don't have to worry about things like static methods because your models should be carrying data to their associated views in a form that is easy for them to render. Tools like AutoMapper can help "flatten" domain objects into models for display purposes.
For additional reading checkout: ASP.NET MVC terminology is tripping me up - why 'ViewModel'?
Whatever data your View needs, put it in the ViewModel.
The way i see it, once your view is going through the rendering process, it should have all the info it needs from the Model it is bound to.
If you start to use helper methods, then the View is "going back to the controller" in a sense. Extension/helper methods are fine for formatting, etc, but they should not call through the model.
Don't forget, you also have ViewData (basically HttpContext.Current.Items, lives for single request), which is a lightweight storage mechanism that can be used to share data across partial views (for example).