I want to use a custom action filter to handle specific exceptions from my service classes to populate the model state and then return the view.
For example, take my previous code:
public ActionResult SomeAction(SomeViewModel model)
{
try
{
_someService.SomeMethod(model);
}
catch (ServiceException ex)
{
ModelState.AddModelError(ex.Key, ex.ErrorMessage);
}
return View();
}
Basically, it would call a service, and if a ServiceException was thrown, it would know that there was an issue w/ the model data, and add the error to the ModelState, then just return the view. But I noticed some very un-DRY-like patterns, because I had this same try/catch code in every action method.
So, to DRY it up a bit, I basically created a new HandleServiceError action filter:
public class HandleServiceErrorAttribute : HandleErrorAttribute
{
public override void OnException(ExceptionContext context)
{
((Controller)context.Controller)
.ModelState
.AddModelError(
((ServiceException)context.Exception).Key,
((ServiceException)context.Exception).ErrorMessage
);
context.ExceptionHandled = true;
}
}
Then simplified my action methods like so:
public ActionResult SomeAction(SomeViewModel model)
{
_someService.SomeMethod(model);
return View();
}
Problem is, once the action filter handles the error, it doesn't return to my action method. I sort of understand, under the hood, why this is happening. But I would still like to figure out a way to do what I'm trying to do.
Is this possible?
Thanks in advance.
UPDATE:
I tried the suggestions from the article Darin provided in his answer, but ran into issues trying to use constructor injection with the controller's model state.
For example, if you look at their Controllers\ProductController.cs code, they have the controller's empty constructor using a service locator to create the service, passing in the controller's ModelState at that point:
public ProductController()
{
_service = new ProductService(new ModelStateWrapper(this.ModelState),
new ProductRepository());
}
But if you look at the injected constructor, it assumes the ModelState will be injected into the constructor for the service:
public ProductController(IProductService service)
{
_service = service;
}
I don't know how to get CI to work with the current controller's ModelState. If I could figure this out, then this approach may work.
You could still return the corresponding view:
context.Result = new ViewResult
{
ViewName = context.RouteData.GetRequiredString("action")
};
You may also take a look at the following article for an alternative about how to perform validation at the service layer.
Related
Hi I have a update method in webAPI and that is a void method and I want to perform unit testing on that method.How do I do that??
Not Found any solution.
Below is webapi controller method :-
[HttpPut]
public void UpdatePushNotification(PushNotificationQueueBO pushnotificationqueueBO)
{
PushNotificationQueueBO.UpdatePushNotificationQueue(pushnotificationqueueBO);
}
Below is the unit test case for above method
[TestMethod]
public void UpdatePushNotificationQueue_ShouldUpdate()
{
var item = GetDemoPushNotificationQueue();
var controller = new PushNotificationQueueController();
var result = controller.UpdatePushNotification(item) as ;
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
}
I want what do I write after as in
var result = controller.UpdatePushNotification(item) as ???
The controller method is void so there is no return type and nothing to cast it to.
I believe this to be an XY problem.
void controller actions will always return HTTP Status Code 200 OK at run-time except when an exception is thrown.
Based on the tags in original post the assumption is that the mentioned controller is an ApiController
which means that the controller can be refactored to
[HttpPut]
public IHttpActionResult UpdatePushNotification(PushNotificationQueueBO pushnotificationqueueBO) {
PushNotificationQueueBO.UpdatePushNotificationQueue(pushnotificationqueueBO);
return Ok();
}
There is also the option to wrap it in a try-catch in case of errors
[HttpPut]
public IHttpActionResult UpdatePushNotification(PushNotificationQueueBO pushnotificationqueueBO) {
try {
PushNotificationQueueBO.UpdatePushNotificationQueue(pushnotificationqueueBO);
return Ok();
} catch (Exception ex) {
return InternalServerError(ex);
//OR
//return InternalServerError()
}
}
But that is more of a cross-cutting concern that can be handled by action filters.
This would then allow for an actual return type to be asserted
//...omitted for brevity
IHttpActionResult result = controller.UpdatePushNotification(item);
Assert.IsNotNull(result);
The PushNotificationQueueBO business object however, appears to be making a static member call.
PushNotificationQueueBO.UpdatePushNotificationQueue(pushnotificationqueueBO);
This makes it difficult to unit test the encapsulated API method call in isolation and may result in undesired behavior.
It is suggested that the static business object call be encapsulated behind an abstraction and implementation that can be replaced by a mock when testing in isolation.
You can test a void function in different ways and it depends on what the void method does. For example, if a void method increments the numeric value of a property of its class, then you can use that property in your test. In your case, your void method performs this action;
PushNotificationQueueBO.UpdatePushNotificationQueue(pushnotificationqueueBO);
Firstly, identify what this action does and what it affects. For example, if this method's action performs a manipulation on a queue object, then you can test this object as a result of the void method.
I'm not sure if this is the correct way to go about the problem I need to solve... however in an OnActionExecuting action filter that I have created, I set a cookie with various values. One of these values is used to determine whether the user is visiting the website for the very first time. If they are a new visitor then I set the ViewBag with some data so that I can display this within my view.
The problem I have is that in some of my controller actions I perform a RedirectToAction. The result is OnActionExecuting is fired twice, once for the original action and then a second time when it fires the new action.
<HttpGet()>
Function Index(ByVal PageID As String) As ActionResult
Dim wo As WebPage = Nothing
Try
wp = WebPages.GetWebPage(PageID)
Catch sqlex As SqlException
Throw
Catch ex As Exception
Return RedirectToAction("Index", New With {.PageID = "Home"})
End If
End Try
Return View("WebPage", wp)
End Function
This is a typical example. I have a data driven website that gets a webpage from the database based on the PageID specified. If the page cannot be found in the database I redirect the user to the home page.
Is it possible to prevent the double firing in anyway or is there a better way to set a cookie? The action filter is used on multiple controllers.
Had the same issue. Resolved by overriding property AllowMultiple:
public override bool AllowMultiple { get { return false; } }
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
//your logic here
base.OnActionExecuting(actionContext);
}
You can save some flag value into TempData collection of controller on first executing and if this value presented, skip filter logic:
if (filterContext.Controller.TempData["MyActionFilterAttribute_OnActionExecuting"] == null)
{
filterContext.Controller.TempData["MyActionFilterAttribute_OnActionExecuting"] = true;
}
You could return the actual action instead of redirecting to the new action. That way, you dont cause an http-request, thereby not triggering the onactionexecuting (i believe)
Old question, but I just dealt with this so I thought I'd throw in my answer. After some investigating I disovered this was only happening on endpoints that returned a view (i.e. return View()). The only endpoints that had multiple OnActionExecuting fired were HTML views that were composed of partial views (i.e. return PartialView(...)), so a single request was "executing" multiple times.
I was applying my ActionFilterAttribute globally to all endpoints, which was working correctly on all other endpoints except for the view endpoints I just described. The solution was to create an additional attribute applied conditionally to the partial view endpoints.
// Used specifically to ignore the GlobalFilterAttribute filter on an endpoint
public class IgnoreGlobalFilterAttribute : Attribute { }
public class GlobalFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
// Does not apply to endpoints decorated with Ignore attribute
if (!filterContext.ActionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(IgnoreGlobalFilterAttribute), false).Any())
{
// ... attribute logic here
}
}
}
And then on my partial view endpoints
[HttpGet]
[AllowAnonymous]
[IgnoreGlobalFilter] //HERE this keeps the attribute from firing again
public ActionResult GetPartialView()
{
// partial view logic
return PartialView();
}
Is there any useful hook in ASP.NET MVC (MVC4) which can let you access the Action method parameter (View model) before the action method becomes invoked, and then also (e.g. depending on the value of something you checked in the action method parameter) let you prevent the action method from being invoked, i.e. instead either forward the view model object (action method parameter) to another action method or directly to some view (i.e. without any further processing in an action method) ?
If you do not understand the question, please see the code example below which should illustrate the kind of code I am looking for...
(though I do not know if there actually exists such kind of interface and a possibility to hook an implementation into the MVC framework)
If this is indeed possible, I would like to see an answer with code example about how to do it (and not just a response with someone claiming that e.g. "try using method 'ActionFilterAttribute.OnActionExecuting' or 'IModelBinder.BindModel' " because I have already tried those and could not make it work).
Also, please respect that I do not want this thread to become a discussion about WHY to do it, but want to see HOW to do it.
(i.e. I am not interested in getting into discussions with responses such as "What are you actually trying to achieve?" or "There are probably better things of doing what you want to do...")
The question can be split into three subquestions/code examples as my own code samples below try to illustrate:
(but would like them "refactored" into REAL code with usage of real existing types)
(obviously, every type below which includes the substring "Some" is something I have made up, and I am looking for the corresponding real thing ...)
(1) Example of how to get access to (and potentially modify) view model objects (action method parameters) in a generic place before the actual action method is invoked with the view model object parameter.
The kind of code example I am looking for would probably be similar to below but do not know what kind of interface to use and how to register it to be able to do something like below:
public class SomeClass: ISomeInterface { // How to register this kind of hook in Application_Start ?
public void SomeMethodSomewhere(SomeActionMethodContext actionMethodContext, object actionMethodParameterViewModel) {
string nameOfTheControllerAboutToBeInvoked = actionMethodContext.ControllerName;
string nameOfTheActionMethodAboutToBeInvoked = actionMethodContext.MethodName;
// the above strings are not used below but just used for illustrating that the "context object" contains information about the action method to become invoked by the MVC framework
if(typeof(IMyBaseInterfaceForAllMyViewModels).IsAssignableFrom(actionMethodParameterViewModel.GetType())) {
IMyBaseInterfaceForAllMyViewModels viewModel = (IMyBaseInterfaceForAllMyViewModels) actionMethodParameterViewModel;
// check something in the view model:
if(viewModel.MyFirstGeneralPropertyInAllViewModels == "foo") {
// modify something in the view model before it will be passed to the target action method
viewModel.MySecondGeneralPropertyInAllViewModels = "bar";
}
}
}
}
(2) Example of how to prevent the targeted action method from being executed and instead invoke another action method.
The example might be an extension of the above example, with something like below:
public void SomeMethodSomewhere(SomeActionMethodContext actionMethodContext, object actionMethodParameterViewModel) {
... same as above ...
if(viewModel.MyFirstGeneralPropertyInAllViewModels == "foo") {
actionMethodContext.ControllerName = "SomeOtherController";
actionMethodContext.MethodName = "SomeOtherActionMethod";
// The above is just one example of how I imagine this kind of thing could be implemented with changing properties, and below is another example of doing it with a method invocation:
SomeHelper.PreventCurrentlyTargetedActionMethodFromBecomingExecutedAndInsteadExecuteActionMethod("SomeOtherController", "SomeOtherActionMethod", actionMethodParameterViewModel);
// Note that I do _NOT_ want to trigger a new http request with something like the method "Controller.RedirectToAction"
}
(3) Example of how to prevent the normal action method from being executed and instead forward the view model object directly to a view without any further processing.
The example would be an extension of the first above example, with something like below:
public void SomeMethodSomewhere(SomeActionMethodContext actionMethodContext, object actionMethodParameterViewModel) {
... same as the first example above ...
if(viewModel.MyFirstGeneralPropertyInAllViewModels == "foo") {
// the below used razor view must of course be implemented with a proper type for the model (e.g. interface 'IMyBaseInterfaceForAllMyViewModels' as used in first example above)
SomeHelper.PreventCurrentlyTargetedActionMethodFromBecomingExecutedAndInsteadForwardViewModelToView("SomeViewName.cshtml", actionMethodParameterViewModel);
}
You could use an action filter and override the OnActionExecuting event:
public class MyActionFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
...
}
}
Now let's see what useful information you could extract from this filterContext argument that is passed to this method. The property you should be looking for is called ActionParameters and represents an IDictionary<string, object>. As its name suggests this property contains all the parameters that are passed to the controller action by name and value.
So let's suppose that you have the following controller action:
[MyActionFilter]
public ActionResult Index(MyViewModel model)
{
...
}
Here's how you could retrieve the value of the view model after model binding:
public class MyActionFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var model = filterContext.ActionParameters["model"] as MyViewModel;
// do something with the model
// You could change some of its properties here
}
}
Now let's see the second part of your question. How to shortcircuit the controller action and redirect to another action?
This could be done by assigning a value to the Result property:
public class MyActionFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
... some processing here and you decide to redirect:
var routeValues = new RouteValueDictionary(new
{
controller = "somecontroller",
action = "someaction"
});
filterContext.Result = new RedirectToRouteResult(routeValues);
}
}
or for example you decide to shortcircuit the execution of the controller action and directly render a view:
public class MyActionFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var viewResult = new ViewResult
{
ViewName = "~/Views/FooBar/Baz.cshtml",
};
MyViewModel someModel = ... get the model you want to pass to the view
viewResult.ViewData.Model = model;
filterContext.Result = viewResult;
}
}
or you might decide to render a JSON result:
public class MyActionFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
MyViewModel someModel = ... get the model you want to pass to the view
filterContext.Result = new JsonResult
{
Data = model,
JsonRequestBehavior = JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet
};
}
}
So as you can see the possibilities are unlimited of what you can do.
I have experimented with the code in the answer provided by the user Darin Dimitrov, and the first and third parts of the answer are correct.
(Though, for others who might find this thread and be interested, I can clarify that in the first answer the "model" does not seem to
be a hardcoded keyword always used for the model but seems to have to correspond to the chosen name of the action method parameter.
In other words, if you instead have the method signature
public ActionResult Index(MyViewModel myViewModel)
then in your action filter you have to use
var model = filterContext.ActionParameters["myViewModel"] as MyViewModel;
)
Regarding the second answer, the usage of 'RedirectToRouteResult' will trigger a new http request (which was not desired as I mentioned in the second code example of mine).
I found another way of "changing" action method by actually invoking it explicitly:
var controller = new SomeController();
ActionResult result = controller.SomeAction(model);
filterContext.Result = result;
The above code actually seems to prevent the originally targeted action method from becoming invoked, i.e. when I put a breakpoint in the method annotated with '[MyActionFilter]' the execution never got into that method.
Typically, it is probably not desired to hardcode a controller like above, but instead reflection might be used, for example as below with the thirdpart library "fasterflect":
string nameOfController = ...
string nameOfActionMethod = ...
// both above variables might for example be derived by using some naming convention and parsing the refering url, depending on what you want to do ...
var theController = this.GetType().Assembly.CreateInstance(nameOfController);
ActionResult result = (ActionResult)theController.CallMethod(nameOfActionMethod, model);
filterContext.Result = result;
(for those who want to extract the names of the current target controller and action method, when implementing logic to determine the controller you want to invoke, you can use this code in the filter:
var routeValueDictionary = filterContext.RouteData.Values;
string nameOfTargetedController = routeValueDictionary["controller"].ToString();
string nameOfTargetedActionMethod = routeValueDictionary["action"].ToString();
)
I think it feels a bit awkward to instantiate and invoke controllers like above, and would prefer to change the target controller and action method in another way if possible ?
So, the remaining question is if there is still (in MVC 4 final version) no way of redirecting/forwarding execution "internally" (without a new http request being fired as with 'RedirectToAction') at the server ?
Basically, I think I am here just looking for something like "Server.Transfer" which was used with ASP.NET Web Forms (and also the old classic ASP I believe could use the same thing).
I have seen older question/answers on this issue with people implementing this behaviour themselves with some "TransferResult" class of their own, but it seems to tend to become broken i different MVC versions.
(for example, see here for MVC 4 beta: How to redirect MVC action without returning 301? (using MVC 4 beta) ).
Is there really still not a simple standard solution (implemented in MVC 4 final) about how to do an "internal redirect" without a new http request (as RedirectToAction does) ?
I am unit-testing my controller.
In one of my controller methods I am setting Session variables:
public void Index()
{ Session["foo"] = "bar";
return View();
}
How can I unit-test this? The problem is that the Session property is null when testing. Injecting is not possible because the Session property is readonly.
I don't want to use any third-party tool or mocking.
Simply dont use things like Session["foo"] in your controller methods. Best practice is keep action methods unaware of any context-like global objects. Everything your action method needs should be given to her in form of arguments. Note that built-in mechanism of model binding works exactly like that - you dont use Request.Form[], you let "somebody behind the scene" pass it to your action as argument.
Now for the session you can do the same - write you very simple ValueProvider which will know how to recognize arguments you want to fill from session, and you are done. In production your actions will work with session, in test you cant simply pass them any values you want as arguments.
For inspiration look at this http://www.prideparrot.com/blog/archive/2012/7/how_to_create_a_custom_session_value_provider
Injecting is not possible because the Session property is readonly.
This means you cannot use setter injection, but could you use constructor injection, ie add a constructor for your controller that is something like:
MyController(Session session)
{
m_session = session;
// then call your main constructor
}
Session getSession()
{
return m_session;
}
You can then use this separate constructor during testing.
I agree with #rouen. do not directly use Session["foo"]. But I think having ValueProvider ans might not be a practical solution, as we only store very few variables, and these values may be and most likely not ur full model.
So my approach is something similar to what Vic Smith suggests but a much more IOC (and Mock) friendly.
I would create a provider (i.e a service) to retrieve the session variables
public class SessionVariableProvider : ISessionVariableProvider
{
public object GetSessionValue(string key)
{
if (!HttpContext.Current.Session.IsNewSession
&& HttpContext.Current.Session[key] != null)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[key];
}
throw new ArgumentNullException(key);
}
public void SetSessionValue(string key, object value)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = value;
}
}
public interface ISessionVariableProvider
{
object GetSessionValue(string key);
void SetSessionValue(string key, object value);
}
Modify your Controller expect ISessionVariableProvider as a parameter.
public class TestController: Controller
{
protected readonly ISessionVariableProvider _sessionVariableProvider;
protected InowiaControllerBase(ISessionVariableProvider sessionVariableProvider)
{
Guard.ArgumentNotNull(sessionVariableProvider, "sessionVariableProvider");
this._sessionVariableProvider = sessionVariableProvider;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
_sessionVariableProvider.SetSessionValue("foo", "bar");
var foo2 = (string)_sessionVariableProvider.GetSessionValue("foo2");
return View();
}
}
when testing create your own test implementation of ISessionVariableProvider and pass it to the controller.
My understanding is that ASP.NET MVC only allows you to POST objects to Actions in the Controller, where the Action's arguments accept the posted object as a Concrete class.
Is there any way around this, or a good alternative?
In my case, I have an action which accepts an interface as an argument:
public ActionResult SaveAdjustment(IModel model)
{
switch (model.SubsetType)
{
// factory like usage
}
}
And for this action, I have numerous views, all strongly typed to objects that implement IModel, all which I want to be able to post to this one method.
Of course, running this give me the error:
Cannot create an instance of an interface
Is there a nice work around to this? Or do I need to create an Action method for each and send them over to a method like this?
MVC generally binds models when posting from Request.Form, that is collection of name=value pairs. The reason that in default implementation there's no support of binding interfaces or abstract classes is obvious - mvc cannot determine which concrete class to create from name=value pairs. If you got hidden field on client side, or any other parameter anywhere by which you are able to determine which type of concrete class to create, you can simply create custom model binder. I believe you can override DefaultModelBinder's CreateModel method and reuse all other built in binding functionality
public class IModelModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, System.Type modelType)
{
//Create and return concrete instance
}
}
And model binder registration in global.asax
ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(IModel?), new IModelModelBinder());
Actually, controllers and actions in mvc are meant to be thin, and some kind of service layer should be thick. As action logic you are trying to implement may get complicated soon, I would recommend moving it into separate service.
Although I mentioned this as a possible solution in my original question, its the solution I have gone with in the end and I actually quite like it now. This way I didn't need to touch the model default binding implementation and I think this approach is a more readable/understandable approach than what I was originally asking for.
In case its not clear why I wanted to go for this approach, I have added an example of how I can use this for its OO benifits.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult SaveModelA(ModelA model)
{
return SaveModel(model);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult SaveModelB(ModelB model)
{
return SaveModel(model);
}
private ActionResult SaveModel(IModel model)
{
IExampleService exampleService;
IRequirements requirements;
switch (model.SubsetType)
{
case SubsetType.ModelA:
myService = new ModelAService();
requirements = new ModelARequirements
{
ModelASpecificProperty = "example"
};
break;
case SubsetType.ModelB:
myService = new ModelBService();
requirements = new ModelBRequirements
{
ModelBSpecificProperty1 = "example",
ModelBSpecificProperty2 = "example2",
ModelBSpecificProperty3 = "example3"
};
break;
default:
throw new InvalidEnumArgumentException();
}
var serviceResonse = exampleService.ExecuteExample(model, requirements);
return RedirectToAction("Index", new
{
ExampleData = serviceResponse.ExampleDate
});
}
In case it isn't clear in the code:
ModelA : IModel
ModelB : IModel
ModelARequirements : IModelRequirements
ModelBRequirements : IModelRequirements
ModelAService : IExampleService
ModelBService : IExampleService
// and IModel defines a property SubsetType SubsetType { get; }