I'm curious if binding models directly as parameters in the action method is considered as bad idea ?
If the form gets to complex, I could create a custom model binder.
Are there any pitfals using this approach ?
I'd like to avoid creating of viewmodel, because I want to keep me app as simple as possible. I'd like to avoid of duplicating the code and the modelview to model binding.
Not necessarily. But soon you will find some state which needs to be on the model but is UI specific and you end up creating a ViewModel anyway.
Also for some properties such as DateTime, this would not work well on the Model if defined as DateTime since there is a problem with making it optional so you have to define it as string. And I do not believe you wanna put string for a date.
Additionally, for DropDown items you need to have a collection on the Model for the SelectListItem which does not make sense on the Model.
That's what happened to me.
I'd advise to almost always use view models.
If you're using the default object templates... they don't really like non-flat models, and while you could override them, it's not always a good idea. Domain Models are usually not flat. Either way, anything based on ModelMetaData is easier with a ViewModel.
Validation is also easier with a ViewModel, as you've got a more focused model, and sometimes there's validation that only makes sense in some views.
Creating ViewModels is much better and safer then sending models using JsonResult... Well... you should NEVER send Domain Models outside anyway, even if you're not using ViewModels. But it's easier using JsonResult when you've got a ViewModel ready. It's also easier to make mistakes and expose sensitive information when you're used to using your domain models everywhere.
Changes are sometimes easier, because changing a property on the Domain Model doesn't mean you have to change all your views, just change the creation of the ViewModel (if you're using some kind of mapper, that's just one change to the binding), although this isn't a very strong point IMO.
Some other benefits are decoupling the presentation layer from the business layer, and if you're using EF or non-poco objects, it'll be harder to use them in views.
If you want to eliminate duplication of code, you could consider creating filters that automatically create your ViewModels, and even without action filters using a mapper does eliminate a lot of code duplication.
BTW, I don't see how creating a custom model binder is simpler than using ViewModels.
I would advise you to always create a ViewModel. In its simplest form it might simply contain a property with the domain object (and accessory data). Something like:
public class DomainModelClass
{
int Property1 { get; set; }
int Property2 { get; set; }
}
public class ViewModelClass
{
DomainModelClass DomainModel { get; set;}
SelecList List1 { get; set; }
}
Anyway, this suggestion is just to keep things simple, because I would advise you to create a "real" viewmodel, and use something like AutoMapper to map the ViewModel <-> DomainModel, even in a simple scenario.
Related
I am working on a new project, and, after seeing some of the difficulties of previous projects that didn't provide enough separation of view from their models (specifically using MVC - the models and views began to bleed into each other a bit), I wanted to use MVVM.
I understand the basic concept, and I'm excited to start using it. However, one thing that escapes me a bit - what data should be contained in the ViewModel?
For example, if I am creating a ViewModel that will encompass two pieces of data so they can be edited in a form, do I capture it like this:
public PersonAddressViewModel {
public Person Person { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
or like this:
public PersonAddressViewModel {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string StreetName { get; set; }
// ...etc
}
To me, the first feels more correct for what we're attempting to do. If we were doing more fine grain forms (maybe all we were capturing was FirstName, LastName, and StreetAddress) then it might make more sense to go down to that level. But, I feel like the first is correct since we're capturing ALL Person data in the form and ALL Address data. It seems like it doesn't make sense (and a lot of extra work) to split things apart like that.
Appreciate any insight.
If you are using all the fields of the Person object, then there's nothing wrong with using a complex view model. However, if you are only using a field here or there, then it's much better to build your viewmodel with only those values you are using.
You can do your view models any way you like, but the whole point of having them is that a view model should be customized to the view it's representing.
It can also be a lot easier to use the first method if you're using something like AutoMapper to map to business or domain models, because the objects should have similar definitions.
You're not using MVVM. You're defining ViewModels, classes for only view purposes in order to avoid to break the Model classes. In that case you can define the properties you want for your best profit. In the example I will go for the second solution but it's up to you.
I'm working on a big project with many developer providers. In that case the customer let us to define the ViewModels that we want keeping the Models (Business Entities as they call) for their concern. Because we are different groups no one is worried about another ViewModels so you can even use one class for one view, no matter if another view is different a little bit from the first one. That's one of the advantages of ViewModels instead of pure Model using.
I prefer to define the ViewModels in client-side through JSON objects for the sake of data binding. With this you can truly use MVVM through knockoutjs, angularjs, backbonejs, etc....
If you want to use MVVM check knockoutjs. It's very easy and pleasant to use
Using Model classes directly or wrapping them (as in your 1st example) in your ViewModel class can be a potential security issue if your Model classes have some sensitive properties (i.e. IsAdmin in the User class).
Say your controller actions takes a PersonAddressViewModel input parameter:
public ViewResult someAction(PersonAddressViewModel personAddress)
{
//save it
}
A malicious user can basically set any property in your PersonAddressViewModel composite object even if your UI does not provide such capabilitiy.
This is made possible by the default binding mechanism of the MVC.
To avoid this, either don't wrap sensitive model classes or use the Bind attribute
More on this here: Pro ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework 3rd Edition By Steven Sanderson , Adam Freeman (Chapter 17)
If you're using that view model to render a form, I would vote for the second approach, since you're combining all the view data required for the form.
want to get rid of ViewBag in my views so i've made a little research about viewmodels.
i like the idea of using it for presentation, no questions here.
but i don't realise what is the best way to use viewmodels for update.
first of all, why shouldn't i use my EF entities with [MetadataType(typeof(User_Validation))]?
public ActionResult Edit(User user)
{
...
}
where User is EntityObject.
then, if i however use viewmodels for it there is another question: here people believe that nested viewmodels should be used, but here is another opinion ("They are not wrappers around domain models", he says). Who is right?
also, what is the best way to update an object in action after POST (without using tryupdatemodel, because here and not only, people are against this approach). i've tried to use ApplyCurrentValues but if there is some complicated logic of update with many-to-many relations, for example, i get some huge EF errors. that's why i need to manually set fields of my EntityObject that i get from DB with values that come to action. Smth like this:
public ActionResult Edit(User user)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var userToUpdate = usersRepository.Get(user.UserId);
userToUpdate.Field1 = user.Field1;
...
// save
}
...
}
where User is EntityObject with validation class.
so, if i use flat viewmodels to get values from form and AutoMapper to set values to my entityobject will it be the most right way to deal with updates or it can be automatized even more?
You answered yourself in the last paragraph. I am using the exactly same approach in my MVC3 EF Code First project.
Here is the practice I follow:
All entity classes are clubbed under one folder "Entity". You can also opt for a separate library project.
Every entity has a corresponding ViewModel class with a postfix of Model (e.g. for Profile entity there is ProfileModel class).
For nested entities there are corresponding nested ViewModel classes.
AutoMapper is used for Model to Entity and vice versa conversions. Here automapper takes care of the nested entities. In case of complex updates, rather than relying on AutoMapper, I take the matter in my own hands in controller.
Works flawlessly with healthy separation between my domain objects and view models.
I'm trying to learn ASPNET MVC. I've built a DbModel starting from DB structure so, under Models, I have the .edmx file that can be used to access data.
I've read that it could be good to have ViewModels classes to act between the View and the Model (useful also for single fields formatting) but I don't' understand if this is right and in which way it's better to build them. If they reproduce classes in my model I believe it is a little bit redundant, isn't it? If this is the right way, is there a way to generate automatically ViewModel classes?
A ViewModel in MVC is a model of your view. It is a property bag containing, usually of primitive types. It may seem redundant, but you are protecting yourself from future problems by decoupling your code.
As an example, given a Person object in your domain model:
public class Person
{
public string FirstName {get; set;} // John
public string LastName {get; set;} // Doe
public DateTime Birthdate {get; set;} // 01/01/1965
}
In your view, you may want to represent this in a view as a full name, age and birthday. Your ViewModel would be similar to:
public class PersonViewModel
{
public string FullName {get; set;} // John Doe
public int Age {get; set;} // 46
public int Birthday {get; set;} // January 1
}
Somewhere in your pipeline, you need to convert from domain model to the viewmodel. I have used either projection queries from the persistence layer or object-to-object mapping frameworks, such as AutoMapper.
By structuring your data this way, you can keep logic and formatting rules out of your view markup. By using a framework, such as AutoMapper, you can also standardize string formatting of dates and times, and do convention-based mappings.
Also, I generally advise having one ViewModel per View. If you need to share View/ViewModel structures or apply conditional view information, those should be separated into partial views.
If you are just starting out I would avoid trying to incorporate every best practice you can find into your early applications. It becomes very easy to try and do everything everyone says is the best practice and you lose track of just learning the fundamentals.
View Models are obviously a great way of seperating the presentation layer and the domain layer, but they serve other purposes. If you are just starting out and your applications are not terribly complicated, I would recommend keeping it simple and use your domain classes as your view model where your views are simple. This will allow you to focus more on the application.
Also, by doing this you will come across views where the simple domain model will not cut it and you will find yourself needing a ViewModel. Which will allow you to incorporate the more specific information you need for your view page (such as multiple domain objects).
By practicing without using View Models for everything, you can gain an appreciation for their benefits and decide what works best for you and your code.
A "view model" (model for a view rather than domain model) helps you separate the domain model from what is bound to the page. Is it always necessary? No, but it is useful if you have some common data shapes used on multiple views where the view will also have some additional data. Another good use is removing certain data from certain types of views (your customer should not know your margin, but your management should?). IT is not mandatory.
I'm using ASP.NET 4 and MVC3.
Often, I find that I need a ViewModel to display information for my Model. For example, take the following model
class Profile
{
public int UserID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime DOB { get; set; }
}
There is a requirement to hide the UserID, but to show the UserName, so often time for models that are similar to the one above, I have to come up with a ViewModel with just the UserID changed to UserName:
class ProfileViewModel
{
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime DOB { get; set; }
}
Are there any ways?
Until recently I always passed my models to my action methods as I also thought that creating viewModels with the same property names was duplication (its not). This caused me a lot of pain. I have now been re-educated and almost always use viewModels exclusively in my action methods (of course there will always be situations were it is fine to pass the model directly to the action method).
Have a read of this post which is the one that converted me to using viewModels. This will tell you the following:
The difference between models and viewModels
When each should be used.
How to avoid some security issues with the default model binder.
On top of the information in the linked post you should also consider things such as validation. I had a model that implemented the IValidateableObject interface to ensure the entity was in a valid state before being saved to the database.
In my ASP.NET application I wanted to create a multi-step form that allowed the user to enter the information over a number of pages. The problem I had here was that ASP.NET also uses the IValidatableObject interface during the model binding process.
If you are only allowing the user to enter a subset of the information required for the entity, the model binder will only be able to fill in the information that was given. Depending on how complex your validation is, this can result in the ModelState being marked as invalid as the entire entity is not valid.
The way I got around this was to have a viewModel representing each step each with its own validation. This way you are only validating the properties at each step. Once you get to the final step and everything is valid, I create an appropriate entity using the information given by the user. This entity will only have database-level validation checks performed upon it (field lengths etc.)
My suggestion is not to avoid viewModels but to understand why they are used and embrace them.
No, there isn't, once a member is public, it's public. Now, if the UserID property was internal, then you wouldn't have that problem.
However, one of the aims of MVVM here is to encapsulate logic regarding the interaction of the model and the view. Even if you have the view model and model in separate assemblies and make the UserID property internal, you should still have a view model; if changes come down the line where more functionality is required than simply binding to the model, you are prepared.
Direct access to the model is always a no no.
Additionally, if you really wanted, you could always use T4 templates to auto-generate the code for you (you could use Code DOM on the original CS file) to output your view models for you.
I usually have multiple ViewModels per model - the tradeoff you have to make comes down to this:
Are you comfortable coupling business logic (data annotations, display information, etc...) with your (persistence) models?
Are you comfortable doing all of the hide / display business logic purely within the View and not use the Controller + scaffolding to make those decisions for you?
The downside of creating all of those ViewModels of course is sub-class explosion, but the right way to think about it is in terms of the questions I listed IMHO.
Here is the lay of the land. Like most people I have my domain object and I have my view models. I love the idea of using view models, as it allows for models to be created specifically for a given view context, without needing to alter my business objects.
The problem I have is with type level validation defined on my domain object and getting those rules to the client. In this case lets say I am using data annotations to describe the validation rules, when I move the data from the domain object to the view model, the view model no longer knows what validation it should get the interface to perform (because the validation is defined back on the domain object).
With MVC 2 you can get it to automatically perform client/server side validation, based on the validation rules of the current object. But because the validation rules are defined on the domain object and not the view model, I would have to duplicate the validation rules on the view model to get this to work.
How do others deal with this type of issue? My thinking is that besides mapping the data from the domain object to the view model, we also need to map across the validation rules, but I haven't really seen others talking about this issue... Brad Wilson has recently talked about this issue at length but hasn't really addressed the duplication of rules on the domain object and on the view models... what are your thoughts?
Cheers
Anthony
The DataAnnotation attributes are about validating input and giving UI feedback to the end user. That's really their only intended use. I use different validation strategies for UI objects and business objects, so the DA validation attributes only end up on models being shown to the user.
This may not be appropriate, but what if you just moved your validation rules/annotations from your Models to your ViewModels? In a few of the projects I've been on, we've chosen to prevent the View from accessing anything but information exposed through its corresponding ViewModel. Since all data interaction would be performed through the ViewModel, there wouldn't be a need to have validation on your Model objects.
The counter to this argument is that you could easily duplicate certain validation rules, since different ViewModels might be interfacing with the same Models. In this case, it might make sense to simply declare your Model as a property exposed on your ViewModel. For postbacks, they could accept a Model as their parameter, allowing the ModelBinder infrastructure to handle the request. In this case, if ModelState.IsValid is false, you could just reassign the property to your ViewModel before redisplaying the View.
I would recommend moving your annotations to your ViewModels. It makes sense since a lot of Views are a) the result of composition of several models or b) a subset of model data.
It turns out that AutoMapper may be able to do this for us automagically, which is the best case scenario.
AutoMapper-users: Transfer validation attributes to the viewmodel?
http://groups.google.com/group/automapper-users/browse_thread/thread/efa1d551e498311c/db4e7f6c93a77302?lnk=gst&q=validation#db4e7f6c93a77302
I haven't got around to trying out the proposed solutions there, but intend to shortly.
(Cross posted this on my (dupe) question as well).
Probably we shouldn't use view models at all?
And define validation rules on model layer entities..
I've been considering this as well for a while now. I totally understand Brad's reply. However, let's assume I want to use another validation framework that is suitable for annotating both domain entities and view models.
The only solution I can come up with on paper that still works with attributes would be to create another attribute that "points" to a domain entity's property that you are mirroring in your view model. Here's an example:
// In UI as a view model.
public class UserRegistration {
[ValidationDependency<Person>(x => x.FirstName)]
public string FirstName { get; set; }
[ValidationDependency<Person>(x => x.LastName)]
public string LastName { get; set; }
[ValidationDependency<Membership>(x => x.Username)]
public string Username { get; set; }
[ValidationDependency<Membership>(x => x.Password)]
public string Password { get; set; }
}
A framework like xVal could possibly be extended to handle this new attribute and run the validation attributes on the dependency class' property, but with your view model's property value. I just haven't had time to flesh this out more.
Any thoughts?