I am working on an MVC application which used data from different entities as well showing current date. I want to pass this data from controller to view. Should i create one entity to hold other entities ?
You can make a view Model and put everything you need in View in this viewmodel.
public class MyViewModel
{
Entity1 Ent{get;set;}
Entity2 Ent2{get;set;}
DateTime CurrentDate{get;set;}
}
public ActionResult index()
{
MyViewModel model = new MyviewModel();
model.Ent = new Entity1();
model.Ent2 = new Entity2();
model.CurrentDate = DateTime.Now;
return View(model)
}
your view must now accept VieModel instead of db generated entity. in view you can access entities like
<%:Model.Ent1.SomeProperty%>
<%:Model.CurrentDate%>
<%:Model.Ent2.SomeProperty2%>
What I would do is to create a ViewModel that will only hold the information specific for a View, not the whole entity.
Do you really require a separate entity? What I am getting at is why not create an anonymous object which returns the entities required or just the properties required. A potential problem may occur by having an entity for every data scenario.
Related
There's probably a really basic answer to this question but I am new to Entity and MVC and am getting used to the basics.
I'm trying to automatically generate a MVC controller for the main table Sites with a dropdown for server. It seems like I would need a model like this:
public class Sites
{
public TTSites TTSites { get; set; }
public List<servers> server { get; set; }
public Sites()
{
server = new List<servers>();
}
}
This is using the classes TTSites and servers both with string server
But if I set this as my model class and my entity database as data context it says I need to define a key. Should I be using the base classes instead of the model or what? Do i need to set something up in the model or base class?
It seems like you've got some terminology confused. You code the controller actions in a controller class, and the routing engine determines what controller action to call based on the URL. For example, if you have a HomeController class with a default Index action, it might look like this:
public ActionResult Index()
{
// code here
}
This would be invoked with the default routing, if you went to your site with a URL like this (let's say your site can be hit via the www.mysite.com URL:
http://www.mysite.com/Home
That would get you into the Index action in the controller.
Ordinarily, one would use a view model to use on the UI side, and that would be populated from an entiy with the data you need in the view itself. If you had two entities like TTSite and Server, you'd populate the Sites view model like so, as a (very simple) example:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var servers = yourDbContext.Servers.ToList();
var ttSite = yourDbContext.TTSites.GetByID(1); // retrieve one entity by its ID value, this would be acquired dynamically based on some sort of user input rather than hard-coded
var viewModel = new Sites(servers);
viewModel.TTSite = ttSite;
return View(viewModel);
}
I'm not including anything regarding making drop-downs, just illustrating getting data into a view model and then creating a view with that view model.
Note that you would not use the Sites class as an entity but rather a view model, and setting its data based on entities from your database. You wouldn't be setting any primary keys in a view model class; those are the concern of the data model, and you've presumably already got those entities (such as TTSite) set up in a usable fashion in your data layer.
Once you've got a controller action and a view up and working, you can turn to getting the view model data into a form usable by a drop-down list, and going from there.
I have An EntityModel that is named ECommerceEntities that contains several entities. If I want to use this model in a view in asp.net mvc, Can I pass ECommerceEntities instance to view or Sould I pass one entity in ECommerceEntities.
I mean :
//Can I use this?
public ActionResult Index()
{
ECommerceEntities entity = new ECommerceEntities();
return View(entity);
}
or
//Should I use this?
public ActionResult Index()
{
ECommerceEntities.OneEntity one_entity = new ECommerceEntities.OneEntity();
//filling one_entity here and then send to view
return View(one_entity );
}
Thanks.
If you are asking if it is possible, it is possible to do both. Yes, both options will work. However if you only need the sub entity in the view, I would just pass the sub entity into the view. No use in passing in more than needed right?
Do not forget that in MVC whatever object you pass in to your view,(EcommerceEntities for example) can have its properties set in the post by MVC's automatic model binding which maps data from the post into the object you pass into the view.
So, this means that someone can hijack the http post and can fill in EcommerceEntities and its sub entities with various bits of random data of their choosing if you are not careful and you may accidentally save this data to your db because you did not expect some of these properties to get set.
So, when working in MVC you have to protect properties that are not being used in your view but are passed into the view to ensure that nobody has injected them.
If you do decide to pass in EcommerceEntities, make sure that you use whitelisting or look at MVC's bind attribute to protect your data when your entity is posted back to your controller.
Because of the work involved in protecting that much extra data, I would say that the sub entity would be best if the screen will populate correctly just off of the sub entity object.
Hopefully this is helpful.
If you want to display a list of all entities (which the Index action is typically used for), you probably want to get all the entities from your database context:
public ActionResult Index()
{
// assumes dbContext is already initialized
ICollection<ECommerceEntities> entities = dbContext.ECommerceEntities
return View(entities);
}
I currently have a repository based on Entity Framework v4 entities (CRUD and GET operations implemented). I'm in the process of creating the corresponding View Models for these entities. Where should I put the conversion/mapping between them? In the controller or modify the repository to perform the mapping in its methods and return back (or accept) the View Model typed objects?
Should I do this
public ActionResult Index()
{
var person = new PersonRepository().Get();
var personViewModel = new PersonViewModel();
personViewModel.InjectFrom(person)
.InjectFrom<CountryToLookup>(person);
return View(personViewModel);
}
or this
public ActionResult Index()
{
var personViewModel = new PersonRepository().Get(); // returns object of type PersonViewModel
// and move this to repository
// var personViewModel = new PersonViewModel();
// personViewModel.InjectFrom(person)
// .InjectFrom<CountryToLookup>(person);
return View(personViewModel);
}
I would extract it out into a private method on the controller or put it into a service class if it's going to be reused in other places.
I don't think it's a good idea putting it on the repository unless it's not generic. Which it should be because in my opinion generic repositories rock!
I would never put transformation code into your repository.
Repositories abstract data access from other concerns. Views abstract
UI formatting from other concerns.
Mixing the two is just throwing all of your careful decoupling away.
The book definition of MVC strongly implies transformation should be done inside the controller:
"The controller receives input and initiates a response by making calls on model objects. A controller accepts input from the user and instructs the model and viewport to perform actions based on that input."
I'm begginer in asp.net mvc and i have some doubts.
P.S: I'm using DDD to learn
I have an ACtion in a Controller and it'll save an entity (from my model) by a repository (for a database).
My doubts is, How can I get the informations from the View and save it by a repository in my Controller ?
Is it correct to get an entity of my Model in Save method of controller, like this:
public ActionResult Save(Product product)
{
// validate object
// save data in repository
return View("Success");
}
Or Need I get an DTO (with a structure similar to my entity) and create an object passing property by property to an entity ?
I didnt' like of FormCollection and I'd like to know, What is recommended architecturally ?
Thanks a lot guys
Cheers
I you want to follow DDD practices as described by the Blue Book you should bind your views to DTO's which can be forwarded to a thin 'Application' layer where Domain objects are created or retrieved from database. This application layer can be a simple facade with methods or can leverage command pattern.
For a live demo, you can see my project -- DDDSample.NET
This kind of problem can be fixed by adding so called view model.
Basically - a view model is DTO that provides data for particular view. In similar fashion - view models are used to get data back from view via model binding. Then - controller just forwards necessary data to domain model.
Typically, in ASP.NET MVC your controller actions will receive strongly typed objects returned by the DefaultModelBinder when editing entity types. Using this pattern you can pass a "Product" to your GET view either by itself or as part of a DTO and then your "Save" method would receive a "Product" object in its parameter list.
So long as you are using either editor templates or fields with matching names (i.e. Html.TextBox("Name") corresponds to Product.Name) then the DefaultModelBinder should be able to correctly fill the typed entity object passed to the action method. You shouldn't have to mess with the FormCollection except in certain edge cases.
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Create() {
return View("Create", new Product());
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Product product) { //or Save(Product)
...
}
As long as your form has fields which match the fields in Product, they should automatically be populated for you based on the values. How you save the entity depends on the data model, whether you're creating a new record or editing an existing one, etc.
I have a simple form which inserts a new Category with the given parentID (ServiceID).
and my parent child relationship is this;
Service > Category
my url for creating a Category based on the ServiceId is this
/Admin/Categories/Create/3 => "3 is the serviceID"
and my Action method is this
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Create(int? id, Category category)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
try
{
category.Service = dbService.GetAll().WithServiceId(id.Value).SingleOrDefault();
dbCategory.Add(category);
dbCategory.Save();
return RedirectToRoute("List_Categories", new { ServiceId = id.Value });
}
catch
{
ModelState.AddRuleViolation(category.GetRuleViolations());
}
}
return
View ....
I am using LinqToSql for db actions. Anyway the strange part begins here.
When i save the data it inserts a data to Service table instead of insterting data just to Category Table and the data which is inserted to Category Table has the new inserted ServiceID.
Is it a problem with the ASP.NET MVC ModelBinder or am i doing a mistake that i dont see ?
I have used LinqToSql in several projects and have never had an issue like this
It could be an error in your LINQ To SQL set up. Is the service id an autogenerated field in the DB -- is it marked as such in the LINQ to SQL classes? Does your service disconnect it from the data context, then not reattach it before submitting? If so, have you tried adding the category to the service and then saving the updated service?
var service = ...
service.Categories.Add(category);
service.Save();
Where does your Category object come from? As I see you are relying on ASP.NET MVC Model binding for providing it but for that you need a form somewhere to make a POST. It would help to see the form too.
Also personally I rather use FormCollection (rather than business model classes) in my action signatures and then pull the posted data out from the FormCollection by myself. Coz sooner or later you end up having some complex objects with various one-to-many, many-to-many relationships that Model Binding just won't pick up and you have to construct it by yourself.