I'm writing a message board webpage. The page consists of a Topic item, then a list of Response and a form to add an additional response.
Im struggling to structure my page and viewdata classes in such a way that they are clean and allow me to take advantage for editor templates and validation attributes.
Currently I have one page to do all the above, and Im thinking my viewdata class will eventually look something like this:
public class TopicViewsData
{
[ValidateNonEmpty("Please enter some text")]
public string Title { get; set; }
[ValidateNonEmpty("Please enter some text")]
public string TopicBody { get; set; }
public IList<TopicResponseViewsData> Responses { get; set; }
public TopicResponseViewsData NewResponse { get; set; }
}
public class TopicResponseViewsData
{
[ValidateNonEmpty("Please enter some text")]
public string ResponseText{ get; set; }
}
My page is typed to a TopicViewsData, it just seems ugly that I have to have NewResponse property just so the page can have access to the validation attributes on TopicResponseViewsData. Is there a nicer way to do this?
Sounds like you are headed towards a massive and complex view, not to mention the issues you are already seeing with your model structuring. Rather than making trade offs to make what you have work I have a few recommendations on your overall view model design.
I tend to separate my models into ViewModels and FormModels. ViewModels are for displaying data and FormModels are for taking user input. Not only does this provide a clear designation of function it generally allows me to keep my FormModel properties typed to primitives, strings, and dates in addition to providing a single place for applying validation logic. While, in my ViewModels I am afforded the flexibility to use complex property types and do not have to worry about validation logic.
To make things even easier I follow Jimmy Bogard's suggestion that you should have only one view per model. By not mixing and matching models I have found my models stay focused and my views do not turn into spaghetti. To keep things tidy I name my models similarly to the Controller and View they are tied to. I might end up with a few extra models, but it is a small price to pay for a cleaner design.
I think that the Body property in the TopicViewsData model is redundant with the NewResponse property.
So your view is working with responses where each response has a body. So:
public class TopicResponseViewsData
{
[ValidateNonEmpty("Please enter some text")]
public string Body { get; set; }
}
So far so good. Next you said that you have a list of responses to show and a new response to add, so:
public class TopicViewsData
{
public IList<TopicResponseViewsData> Responses { get; set; }
public TopicResponseViewsData NewResponse { get; set; }
}
For the moment, given your description that's all I see necessary in the view model. At least model reflects your scenario description.
Related
I'm working with Entity Framework with a database-first approach. I already defined the model inside my application. Now I'm working with controllers and views. I used scaffolding in order to create controllers. Now I want to create rows.
Let's say I want to create employees, and let's say the DBA and EF made this possible:
public partial class TBL_EMPLOYEE
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public TBL_EMPLOYEE()
{
this.TBL_EMPLOYEE = new HashSet<TBL_EMPLOYEE>();
}
public int EMPLOYEE_ID { get; set; }
public String CO_WORKER_NUMBER { get; set; }
public string NAME { get; set; }
public string LAST_NAME { get; set; }
public string SALARY { get; set; }
public string PHONE_NUMBER { get; set; }
public string EMAIL { get; set; }
public string { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
}
Now, I need a view to create an employee, let's call this view VIEW 1
In this view, the user only needs to specify name and last name values. Both are required.
Now, in this VIEW 1 case I could use the following data annotations attributes in the same class, that'd be:
[Required]
public string NAME { get; set; }
[Required]
public string LAST_NAME { get; set; }
Now, let's go to the next case. I need another View, let's call this VIEW 2
In this one, the user needs to specify all values for all attributes. All of them are required except for name and last name.
THE REAL QUESTION
How can I use the same model class for both views? The example above here might seem a bit silly and trivial validations but I've been in bigger projects where entities are bigger and the idea of having different ViewModel classes is just so much work.
I've stumbled upon this in my .NET developments, to the point I had to create a ViewModel class per view in order to be specific with what the user needs to input and their validation. Is this the only way?
To avoid duplicating models with minor variations, try this:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18898112/6850962
Basically, create a base model with data annotations that apply in all situations (eg: DisplayName) and then extend the model for variations (eg: Required attribute).
If you are trying to use your Entity Framework entities approach, I wouldn't put validation attributes on those entities. I would either:
create separate distinct classes and then copy data from the EF entities to the models, and vice versa on update (either by writing the code explicitly, or using a tool like AutoMapper or many others). Then you can define the validation rules anyway you want. Unfortunately this approach does tightly couple validation to the model and thus model reuse may not be as possible.
Use a more fluid validation framework like FluentValidation (https://github.com/JeremySkinner/FluentValidation). The benefit to this is that you define an external class with the rules internal, which can be applied differently depending on the situation. The model may still need some indicator on the model itself to figure out which rules apply, but this is another functional approach to handling the scenario you describe.
For reasons given below, strongly typing the layout seems a logical approach.
But I am scared to ignore the warnings of so many programmers so much more skilled an experienced than myself.
Why do so many recommend avoiding this approach?
Brief Breakdown of Arguments For / Against
I am planning to use a model like this as a base class for my application's ViewModels.
public class LayoutViewModel
{
public string CanonicalURL { get; set; }
public string PageTitle { get; set; }
public string MetaTitle { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string OGImage { get; set; }
public string OGType { get; set; }
}
This question generated some sensible sounding arguments against doing so, for example:
"layout is a partial used by all of your views. Specifying a model
there would add restriction to every view on your site to also have
that model."
"you are avoiding one "bad practice" (dynamic typing of ViewBag), but
trying to replace it with another bad practice (tying your layout to
model data). Layouts should not rely on data.."
Ant P suggested: "You should delegate the parts of your layout that
"need a model" to a separate controller using partial views and
RenderAction"
But on reflection, I don't find them convincing:
PageTitle, MetaTitle, Description and OG data are required for
every full page view, so I feel it's proper that the ViewModel should contain
that data.
Why should I avoid "tying my layout to model data"? Is not every MVC view tied to the model it is based on?
ViewBag is inconvenient and error prone
The only disadvantage I see is that layout changes may require changes to the base model also. But this seems minor compared to the advantages a strongly typed _layout.cshtml. And realistically, it's unlikely that the properties above will change any time soon.
I have a details view that is typed to IEnumerable. The view with a bunch of drop downs that let you add filters to the list of records rendered.
All these dropdowns correspond to properties on the MVC model:
public class Record
{
public string CustomerNumber { get; set; }
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
public string LineOfBusiness{ get; set; }
public DateTime? Date { get; set; }
}
Now, I'm using my model as my dto to shuffle data between my controller and my repo. Since all my drop down filters represent the model properties, I pass my model to a repo retrieval method, check its properties and filter based on its values? In other words:
public IEnumerable<TradeSpendRecord> Get(TradeSpendRecord record)
{
IQueryable<tblTradeSpend> query = _context.tblRecords;
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(record.CustomerName))
query = query.Where(x => x.CustomerNumber == record.CustomerNumber);
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(record.LineOfBusiness))
query = query.Where(r => r.LOB == record.LineOfBusiness);
SNIP
Hope this isn't too subjective, but I'm wondering if anyone has any input about whether this is a good/bad practice. I haven't seen a whole lot of examples of dynamic filtering like I need to do, and am looking for some guidance.
Thanks,
Chris
If you're doing what I think you're doing, I'm not sure this is the best way of doing it.
Keep your 'Models' in your MVC/presentation layer (whether this is one physical assembly or not) dedicated to your presentation layer. The only things that should be touching them are your Views and your Controllers. You don't want what should be independent entities to be so tightly coupled to your View Models.
I'd suggest creating a separate TradeSpendFilter class, which, at its simplest, exposes the filterable properties of your domain entity (likely more than any given View Model). You'd then pass this into your "filtering service" or whatever it may be. This also means you can extend your filtering functionality independent of both your domain models and your MVC app. For example, if you suddenly want to filter multiple objects, you can simply change...
public class TradeSpendFilter
{
public string CustomerName { get; set; }
...
}
...to...
public class TradeSpendFilter
{
public IEnumerable<string> CustomerNames { get; set; }
...
}
... without causing all sorts of problems for your MVC app.
Additionally, it will also mean you can make use of your filtering functionality elsewhere, without tying further components to your MVC app and ending up in a bootstrapped mess.
I read this q/a Real example of TryUpdateModel, ASP .NET MVC 3 and was really interested on #ben-foster response.
I started doing a comment on that answer but got quite long, so started a new Question.
Having ViewModels for everything approach (which i like a lot) get me into some 'weird scenarios' that i want advice in how should I do.
Imagine this structure :
public class ProductListEditableViewModel {
List<ProductEditViewModel> products {get;set;}
}
public class ProductEditViewModel {
List<PriceViewModel> prices {get;set;}
}
public class PriceViewModel {
CurrencyViewModel currency {get;set;}
}
and so on ... ? do you really make one view model for each inner class? how then you map all that to the Model Object?
Also, that covers the Edit, but I have an Add, a send via email, and potentially more Views so more ViewModels!! should i end like something :
AddCurrencyViewModel
QuickAddCurrencyViewModel
EditCurrencyViewModel
ListCurrencyViewModel
DeleteCurrencyViewModel
ShareCurrencyViewModel
all having the 'almost same' properties ?
Should all those be packed into one file ?
Also do i need all this all viewModels or a inheritance approach might be better?
If you can, I´ll appreciate elaborate on complex scenarios
Also, I use a DTO approach to expose some of the model objects into web service / apis, so I already have some form of mapping already in place where this DTO are not exactly my ViewModels, should I remove one of them? what´s the suggestion in this scenario ?
I´m using entity framework but i think the question is (or should be) ORM agnostic.
Not using UoW pattern (will this helps?) as looks it´s gets more complicated as the depth of the object increases.
Thanks a lot!
We typically have a view model per view so yes, if you have lots of views you will have lots of view models.
In typical CRUD applications we often have very similar views, for example Add and Update. In these cases, yes we use inheritance rather than writing duplicate code - usually Add subclasses Update.
public class AddFoo : UpdateFoo {
public AddFoo() {
// set up defaults for new Foo
}
}
public class UpdateFoo {
public string Name { get; set; }
// etc.
}
We attempted to "share" view models between views in the past and normally ended up in a world of pain.
With regard to your "weird scenario" - this does look weird indeed, but perhaps because I don't understand your application.
The goal of your view model is to provide the information to the view that is needed and ideally to flatten any complex objects so they are easier to work with. You shouldn't split your view models up like your example unless it makes sense to do so.
Let's say I wanted to a create a view where the customer could change their contact details. Taking the following domain object:
public class Customer {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get;set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
I'd probably flatten this to a view model like so:
public class UpdateAddressModel {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string AddressLine1 { get; set; }
public string AddressLine2 { get; set; }
public string AddressCity { get; set; }
// etc.
}
Of course there will be occasions where it doesn't make sense to do this, for example a dashboard view in an online store where you have a list of products going out of stock and a list of recent orders - these two things are unrelated but are required by your view:
public class DashboardModel {
public List<Product> ProductsGoingOutOfStock { get; set; }
public List<Order> NewOrders { get; set; }
}
how then you map all that to the Model Object?
I'm assuming by Model Object you mean your data/domain model. The key takeaway here is that the view model you use to render your view is unlikely to be the same as the "models" you POST to the server and if they are, you're probably over-POSTing or you have some crazy enter-everything data capture screen that will make your eyes bleed.
I find it helps to think of what you send to your server as Commands and what you use to render your views as view models.
So the answer to your question - how do you map your complex view model to your data model? - Quite simply, you don't. You should send commands to the server that perform a specific task e.g. updating an address.
There's no hard and fast rule in how you structure your view models but generally go with what makes sense and if it starts to feel too complicated you're probably trying to do too much with one view.
I hope this helps. You'll find lots of posts relating to this matter on my blog.
I realize this is an old-ish question but I did want to address one of the questions posed by the OP that was not answered.
Should all those [ViewModels] be packed into one file ?
Most of the examples I see put each ViewModel in a separate file, so the dominant convention seems to be one file per viewmodel, but I found in practice that this seems to be overkill. Instead I put all viewmodels for a particular controller in one file with multiple viewmodels in it. So for example if User is my Controller and I have several viewmodels associated with this controller such as UserAddViewModel, UserEditViewModel, UserDeleteViewModel I put all of the viewmodels for User in one file called UserViewModels.cs
I use helper #Html.EditorForModel() on all my views.
There is a desire that he skip two fields in my model, but only on this view, the other he must continue to display these fields as usual.
How can I skip these two fields only in this view?
Use the [ScaffoldColumn(false)] attribute.
E.g.
public class Person {
[ScaffoldColumn(false)]
public int PersonID { get; set; }
...
Solution and example sourced from: Pro ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework, Third Edition
I'd recommend writing viewmodels for any view that you want to deviate from default behaviour.
Side note: It's probably a good idea to write a viewmodel for every view, as you get separation of concerns, and it's easier to control the behaviour of each view.
Anyway...
For example, say your model is
class Herps {
public string Name { get; set; }
public int SecretToSomePeople { get; set; }
}
and you don't want to have SecretToSomePeople shown on one of your views, create a viewmodel that doesn't contain SecretToSomePeople
class Herps {
public string Name { get; set; }
}
and use that as the model for the desired view. Make sure you copy to/from the actual model somewhere though.
Strictly speaking, if you don't want to display the fields then they shouldn't be on the Model - the point of Models to to hold exactly the data required for the View.