I have an InvoiceInputModel with a ProjectId property which is a reference to a Project entity. Ideally, I want AutoMapper to be able to map an entire Invoice entity from an InvoiceInputModel, which looks like this:
public class InvoiceInputModel
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string Reference { get; set; }
public Guid ProjectId { get; set; }
}
Obviously the following is bad:
Mapper.CreateMap<InvoiceInputModel, Invoice>()
.ForMember(src => src.Project, opt => opt.MapFrom(
dest => _unitOfWork.CurrentSession.Get<Project>(dest.ProjectId)
)
);
How do I tell AutoMapper that invoice.Project should be mapped to a Project entity based off of the ProjectId property in InvoiceInputModel while preserving loose coupling?
Invoice/Edit in my InvoiceController:
[HttpPost]
[Authorize]
public ActionResult Edit(InvoiceInputModel invoiceInputModel)
{
var invoice = _unitOfWork.CurrentSession.Get<Invoice>(invoiceInputModel.Id);
Mapper.Map<InvoiceInputModel, Invoice>(invoiceInputModel, invoice);
invoice.Project = _unitOfWork.CurrentSession.Get<Project>(invoiceInputModel.ProjectId);
// I want AutoMapper to do the above.
_unitOfWork.CurrentSession.SaveOrUpdate(invoice);
_unitOfWork.Commit();
return View(invoice);
}
I spotted something about "Resolvers" and ResolveUsing, but I have no experience using it.
How do I tell AutoMapper to do this while preserving loose coupling between my entity models, input models and view models? Or is there a better way?
How do I tell AutoMapper that invoice.Project should be mapped to a Project entity based off of the ProjectId property in InvoiceInputModel while preserving loose coupling?
You can't. If AutoMapper is going somewhere else to fetch data, then it's not loose coupled.
You're not modifying the Project in this particular View anyway - why do you need to set the relationship to Project, isn't nHibernate smart enough to see that property hasn't changed, and not do anything?
I personally have entities in viewmodels instead of IDs, so that binding happens automatically.
http://sprokhorenko.blogspot.com/2011/03/bind-to-entity-id.html
Related
I am working on an asp.net mvc-5 with Entity framework 6. now currently i am not using any kind on generic repositories , as the ones mentioned here:-
Link-1
&
Link-2
now the generic repository gives you a feeling that you can do everything in a generic way.. but inside these 2 links seems what can be generilzed are the basic operations for get, add, delete & modify which are by defualt provided inside Entity framework. so can anyone adivce on thses question regading using Generic repositories with EF-6 & MVC-5:-
1.is it really a good approach of using Generic repo ? as seems generic repo will just provide what EF already provide !!
2.let say i have two Parent/Child (DataCenter/Zone) objects:-
public class DataCenter
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public byte[] timestamp { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Zone> Zones { get; set; }
}
public class Zone
{
public int ZoneID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int DataCenterID { get; set; }
public virtual DataCenter DataCenter { get; set; }
}
now using the Generic repository i can Get,Add,Edit,Delete these 2 objects using the same generic repo methods. but let say i want to retrieve all the Zones related to a specific Datacenter as follow:-
var results = entity.DataCenters.SingleOrDefault(a => a.ID == id).Zones.Where(a => a.Name.Contains("1"));
so can the generic repository support such a query , in a way that i can re-use the query with another object types (other than Datacenter & zones). for example to have a generic query :- to get a parent object by ID and for its child to get the childs that have their names contain the word "1" ?? and what if the parent have multiple child types !! will the generic repository support non-generic queries and operations ?
I went through the same question... I first did a specific repository, then I changed to a generic. But I've ended up having to code so much specific queries, that I decide to change for non-generic repositories, returning ToList (I didn't want IQueryable) and using Unit of Work pattern. Now I think I'm happy with the way things are.
Edit:
Query the child by it's property, bringing back the parent too (is that what you want?):
return await _context.Entity.Include(e => e.Parent)
.Where(e => e.SomeProp == someParam)
.ToListAsync();
Or, Querychild, using some property in the parent, bringing back The parent:
return await _context.Entity.Include(e => e.Parent)
.Where(e => e.Parent.SomeProp == someParam)
.ToListAsync();
I'm starting to use AutoMapper and some doubts arose.
Where is the correct way to map a dto into a domain model?
I'm doing this:
DTO:
public class PersonInsert
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
Action:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Insert(PersonInsert personInsert)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
new PersonService().Insert(personInsert);
return RedirectToAction("Insert");
}
return View("Insert");
}
Service:
public class PersonService
{
public int Insert(PersonInsert personInsert)
{
var person = Mapper.Map<PersonInsert, Person>(personInsert);
return new PersonRepository().Insert(person);
}
}
Repository:
public class PersonRepository
{
internal int Insert(Person person)
{
_db.Person.Add(person);
_db.SaveChanges();
return person.Id;
}
}
So, is this correct? should my service knows about domain? or should I make the bind in repository only? is correct to use [Required] in DTO?
I would almost never create an entity from a DTO - I explain why below. I would use a request object to allow a factory method to build the entity:
Request:
public class InsertPersonRequest
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
Action:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Insert(InsertPersonViewModel viewModel)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
InsertPersonRequest request = InsertPersonViewModelMapper.CreateRequestFrom(viewModel);
new PersonService().Insert(request );
return RedirectToAction("Insert");
}
return View("Insert");
}
Service:
public class PersonService
{
public int Insert(InsertPersonRequest request)
{
var person = Person.Create(request.name, request.LastName);
return new PersonRepository().Insert(person);
}
}
Repository stays the same.
This way all logic for creating the Person are located in the Factory method of the person, and so business logic is encapsulated in the domain - derived fields, default fields etc.
The problem with what you are doing is that the DTO has to be created in the UI, then all fields are mapped to the entity - this is a sure fire way for business logic to seep into the service layer, UI, or anywhere it is not supposed to be.
PLease read that again - This is a very serious mistake I see made time and time again.
I would however, use AutoMapper in the service layer to return a DTO:
Service:
public class PersonService
{
public PersonDto GetById(intid)
{
var person = new PersonRepository().GetById(id);
var personDto = Mapper.Map<Person, PersonDto>(person);
return personDto
}
}
Is this correct?
I personally don't see anything wrong with having your service do the mapping
Is it correct to use [Required] in DTO
No, DTOs should have no business logic whatsoever. They should be used purely for transmitting data across different tiers/layers of your application.
DataAnnotations are typically used on ViewModels for client/server side validation, therefore, I would add another separation into your model and introduce a ViewModel for your Insert action e.g.
public class PersonViewModel
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public class PersonDto
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
Action:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Insert(PersonViewModel personViewModel)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var personDto = Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, PersonDto>(personViewModel);
new PersonService().Insert(personDto);
...
}
...
}
}
Service:
public class PersonService
{
public int Insert(PersonDto personDto)
{
var person = Mapper.Map<PersonDto, Person>(personDto);
return new PersonRepository().Insert(person);
}
}
It may seem overkill in this scenario (considering the only difference is the [Required] attribute). However, in a typical MVC application you would want to ensure a clean separation between your ViewModels and your business models.
I would say that your PersonService could be seen as part of the domain layer (or Application layer directly above the domain) of your architecture and the controller and DTO is in a layer above that. That means you shouldn't have a reference to the DTO in your PersonService signatures and instead use the domain Person class here. So the Mapping code should go into the Controller. This ensures that your domain logic is not affected by changes to the webservice contract which could really be just one way to use your PersonService.
I would also introduce an interface for your repository which is injected into your PersonService because the PersonService again shouldn't need to know about concrete data access implementations.
As for the [Required] attribute, I don't see a problem with having this on the DTO because it just states the data contract of your webservice method. Anybody calling your webservice should adhere to this data contract. Of course this requirement will typically also be reflected somewhere in your domain code, maybe by throwing an exception etc.
In ASP.NET MVC the typical use of DTO is being part of something called viewmodel. Viewmodel is a class that will combine one to several DTOs into one class tailored for view presentation and posting values back to server.
What you doing is correct, no issues with that, but data annotations should reside on view models, rather than DTOs. Unless you call your DTO a view model, then its fine.
Please read the following posting about model (Domain Model) vs ViewModel in ASP.NET MVC world:
ASP.NET MVC Model vs ViewModel
Confused with Model vs ViewModel
Hope this helps
I think it is fine to have annotations on the DTOs, such as [Required], MaxLength, Range etc.
Your DTO can come in from any (possibly untrusted) source (Not just your website, but from another endpoint, WCF service, etc). All requests will be funneled to your Service/Business Layers, so you will need to validate the input before performing your business logic (simple guard checks). Having the annotations on the DTO simply describe the needed input to perform the task at hand. Passing an object with annotations is not peforming validation.
However, I believe you should be validating the DTO information is correct in the service/business layer (and annotations are a nice way to check this).
Just my thoughts on the situation :)
I am just starting to investigate ASP.NET MVC, and I am using the latest beta (ie. 4). I'm after the correct approach to what is a fairly CRUD scenario. My main table (Task) looks something like this -
TaskID (int)
EmployeeID (int)
ProjectID (int)
DeptID (int)
Comment (varchar)
Date (datetime)
Hours (float)
TaskID is the primary key. The other three IDs are all foreign keys into reference tables.
Following various tutorials, I created an object model (.edmx) using Entity Framework. I then autogenerated the controller using "Add... Controller" and selecting the "Controller with read/write..." template.
All worked well. However, obviously I want the three foreign key columns to display lookup values from the reference tables, rather than the ID. I'm really not sure what the "best practice" method for achieving this is. A few options occur to me -
Create a view in SQL Server
Create a view in EF (not sure how this is done)
Look up the reference values on the fly using LINQ in the controllers
Perhaps there are other ways. I would like to hear from experienced MVC progs regarding "best practice" in this scenario.
would prefer to have TaskViewModel class which will have properties something like this
public class TaskViewModel
{
public Task Task { get; set; }
public Dictionary<int, string> ProjectList { get; set; }
//rest of the Lookup Properties like DeptList, EmpList
}
public class Task
{
public int TaskId { get; set; }
public int projectId { get; set; }
//Rest of the properties
}
And would use
#model TaskViewModel
#Html.DropDownListFor(m => m.Task.projectId, new SelectList(Model.ProjectList, "key", "value", Model.Task.projectId))%>
I just wondered how people were approaching this situation. It's something that seems like a weak point in my usage of MVC with ORMs (NHibernate in this case)...
Say you have a fine-grained and complicated entity in your model. You will likely have an admin page to manage objects of this type. If the entity is complicated, it is unlikely that you will be modifying the whole entity in one form. You still need to pass the relevant properties to the view, and incorporate changes to those properties in the model when the view returns them.
What does anyone do in this situation?
Create a view model which is (or contains) a subset of the entities properties. Pass this to and from the view. In 'edit' action method in controller, get the object from repository, go though all the properies in the ViewModel and apply them to the Model object (model.a = viewmodel.a, modelb = viewmodel.b). This seems the obvious sensible route, but generates a lot of tedious plumbing code. Also this complicates validation a bit.
Something else?
I've looked briefly at automapper - but this doesn't seem to fit the bill exactly, maybe I'm wrong?
Thanks.
This sounds like the perfect scenario for automapper. You create a view model class which contains a subset of the fields or your real model, and you let AutoMapper take care extraccting values from the domain model object into your view model object. What issues are you having with this approach?
Consider this example:
Here is your domain model and your view model
public class Person
{
public string FirstName
{ get; set; }
public string LastName
{ get; set; }
public string HomeNumber
{ get; set; }
public string Address1
{ get; set; }
public string Address2
{ get; set; }
}
public class PersonViewModel
{
public string FirstName
{ get; set; }
public string LastName
{ get; set; }
public string HomeNumber
{ get; set; }
}
Here is your mapping, you have to create a mapping in both directions from dm->vm and vm->dm.
From what I've seen when using Automapper is that if you map from object A to B and B has a property which A doesn't have, it will be reset. So when I create the map I direct it to ignore those missing properties. I'm not a Automapper expert so I may be using it wrong.
Mapping
Mapper.CreateMap<Person, PersonViewModel>();
// Automapper will reset values in dest which don't exist in source, so be sure to ignore them!
Mapper.CreateMap<PersonViewModel, Person>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.HomeNumber, opt => opt.Ignore());
Finally usage:
Person p = new Person()
{
FirstName = "First",
LastName = "Last",
Address1 = "add 1",
Address2 = "add 2"
};
PersonViewModel pvm = Mapper.Map<Person, PersonViewModel>(p);
// Map to a new person
Person p2 = Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, Person>(pvm);
// Map to the existing person just to update it
Person p3 = new Person()
{
HomeNumber = "numberHere"
};
// This will update p3
Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, Person>(pvm, p3);
Because of the exclusion, this is obviously less than ideal, but much better than manually doing the whole thing.
Have your view model map one-to-one with your domain model.
Specify Model as argument for the routeValues as below. This means your view model will be initialized with the values from the domain model. Only the sub set of fields in the form will be overwritten in the resulting personViewData.
Update View:
#model ViewModel.PersonView
#using (Html.BeginForm("Update", "Profile", Model, FormMethod.Post))
{
...Put your sub set of the PersonView fields here
}
ProfileController:
public ActionResult Update(string userName)
{
Person person = _unitOfWork.Person.Get().Where(p => p.UserName == userName).FirstOrDefault();
PersonView personView = new PersonView();
Mapper.Map(person, personView);
return View(personView);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(PersonView personViewData)
{
Person person = _unitOfWork.Person.Get().Where(p => p.UserName == personViewData.UserName).FirstOrDefault();
Mapper.Map(personViewData, person);
_unitOfWork.Person.Update(person);
_unitOfWork.Save();
return Json(new { saved = true, status = "" });
}
Why don't you use TryUpdateModel with the form collection.
If your view is editing a person
public class Person
{
public string ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}
And your view is only editing first name and last name, you can do this:
public ActionResult Action(FormCollection form)
{
Person personToUpdate = Repository.GetPerson(form["ID"]);
TryUpdateModel<Person>(personToUpdate, form);
Repository.Update(personToUpdate)
return View();
}
That will only update Person with the items that a part of the form collection. If you don't want a field updated, don't submit it with the form.
What if you have full model but each page uses and updates only the required part? Then you update the business model using complete view data at the last page.
I use a similar approach to yours (in my case Entity Framework) with Entity -> ViewModel -> View but only on views with "complex" entities that have either 1:M or M:M relationships. In most cases I took the low road and went for Entity->View when I have a simple entity.
My ViewModel is defined as Entity+supporting properties: SelectList or MultiSelectList and either a string or List<string>. I'll also use a ViewModel for instances where I have properties I need for the view but may not necessarily need in the entity (database).
Http Get controller methods are straightforward ActionResults with return View(repository.FetchNewViewModel()) for Create or repository.FetchModelById(id) for Edit. In both instances I'm initializing my entities before passing them to the view.
Create([Bind(Exclude = "Entity.EntityId")] ViewModel model) and Edit(ViewModel model) are the Http Post controller methods of Create and Edit. My Edit view has a hidden input field for EntityId to pass it back and forth.
By the time the Http Post method has the viewmodel, I lose all Entity.Relation and ViewModel.(Multi)SelectList values. I have to rebuild the object if I want my view to display properly:
`
try
{
var tags = model.TagIds; // List<string> or <int> depending on your Id type
if (model.TagsList == null) // It will be
{
model.TagsList = _repository.FetchSelectedTags(tags); // Build a new SelectList
}
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View(model);
}
_repository.Add(model.Article, tags); // or Save() for Edit
}
catch
{
return View(model); // Generally means something screwed in the repository class
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
`
There is maybe 30% of my entity base using a ViewModel so I definitely only use it as needed. If you have complex views and model data in most instances you can probably break it down to smaller views.
Right now i´m working on a large project using S#arp Architecture and im also using the approach:
Model -> ViewModel -> Model
I use the ViewModel for the Binding part and Validations, the other approach is to use the Model Directly (with tryUpdateModel / UpdateModel which we used during the prototype develop) but for complex scenarios we end up handling special situation like SelectLists/Checkbox/Projections/HMAC Validations in a little ViewModel anyway and using a lot of Request.Form["key"] =( , the other drawback is handling the errors situations where you want to repopulate the form with the user input, i found it a little more complicated using the Model directly (using a ViewModel we take a lot of advantage of ModelState attempted value, saving us a couple of trips to the DB, anyone who have faced this scenario will know what i mean).
This approach is a bit time consuming, just like you said, you end up matching properties, but in my opinion is the way to go for complex forms.
It worth mentioning that we just use ViewModels for the Create/Edit scenarios, for almost everything else we use directly the model.
I have not use autommapers so far, but definitely i ll give it a try.
Does it make sense create an object that contains only those properties that the user will input on the webpage, use that for binding in the controller, and then map to the full Entity Object? Or should you just use the entity object, and use Include and Exclude to make restrictions on what gets bound on input?
I have come to like the idea of using interfaces to segregate which properties should be included when the object is updated.
For example:
To create and update an person object:
interface ICreatePerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
string Sex { get; set; }
int Age { get; set; }
}
interface IUpdatePerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
class Person : ICreatePerson, IUpdatePerson
{
public int Id { get; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Sex { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
Then, when binding model, just use the appropriate interface as the type and it will only update the name property.
Here is an example controller method:
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection)
{
// Get orig person from db
var person = this.personService.Get(id);
try
{
// Update person from web form
UpdateModel<IUpdatePerson>(person);
// Save person to db
this.personService.Update(person);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
ModelState.AddModelErrors((person.GetRuleViolations());
return View(person);
}
}
See this article (and the comments) for a very good discussion of the options.
I recommend using a separate presentation model type in most cases. Aside from the issue of binding (which is important, but there are other ways around this issue), I think that there are other reasons why using presentation model types is a good idea:
Presentation Models allow "view-first" development. Create a view and a presentation model at the same time. Get your user representative to give you feedback on the view. Iterate until you're both happy. Finally, solve the problem of mapping this back to the "real" model.
Presentation Models remove dependencies that the "real" model might have, allowing easier unit testing of controllers.
Presentation Models will have the same "shape" as the view itself. So you don't have to write code in the view to deal with navigating into "detail objects" and the like.
Some models cannot be used in an action result. For example, an object graph which contains cycles cannot be serialized to JSON.