I've made a custom model, and I want to mock it. I'm fairly new to MVC, and very new to unit testing. Most approaches I've seen create an interface for the class and then make a mock that implements the same interface. However I can't seem to get this to work when actually passing the interface into the View. Cue "simplified" example:
Model-
public interface IContact
{
void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars);
}
public abstract class Contact : IContact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars = null)
{
//construct email...
}
}
public class Enquiry : Contact
{
//some extra properties...
}
View-
<%# Page Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<project.Models.IContact>" %>
<!-- other html... -->
<td><%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => ((Enquiry)model).Name)%></td>
Controller-
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Index(IContact enquiry)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
return View(enquiry);
enquiry.SendEmail(Request.ServerVariables);
return View("Sent", enquiry);
}
Unit Testing-
[Test]
public void Index_HttpPostInvalidModel_ReturnsDefaultView()
{
Enquiry enquiry = new Enquiry();
_controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "dummy value");
ViewResult result = (ViewResult)_controller.Index(enquiry);
Assert.IsNullOrEmpty(result.ViewName);
}
[Test]
public void Index_HttpPostValidModel_CallsSendEmail()
{
MockContact mock = new MockContact();
ViewResult result = (ViewResult)_controller.Index(mock);
Assert.IsTrue(mock.EmailSent);
}
public class MockContact : IContact
{
public bool EmailSent = false;
void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars)
{
EmailSent = true;
}
}
Upon a HttpPost I get a "Cannot create an instance of an interface" exception. I seems that I can't have my cake (passing a model) and eat it (pass mock for unit testing). Maybe there's a better approach to unit testing models bound to views?
thanks,
Med
I'm going to throw it out there, if you need to mock your models you're doing it wrong. Your models should be dumb property bags.
There is absolutely no reason that your model should have a SendEmail method. That is functionality that should be invoked from a controller calling to an EmailService.
Responding to your question:
After years of working with Separation of Concern (SOC) patterns like MVC, MVP, MVVM and seeing articles from people brighter than me (I wish I could find the one I'm thinking off about this but maybe I read it in a magazine). You will eventually conclude in an enterprise application you will end up with 3 distinct sets of model objects.
Previously I was a very big fan of doing Domain Driven Design (DDD) using a single set of business entities that were both plain old c# objects (POCO) and Persistent Ignorant (PI). Having domain models that are POCO/PI leaves you with a clean slate of objects where there is no code related to accessing the object storage or having other attributes that have schematic meaning for only 1 area of the code.
While this works, and can work fairly well for a period of time, there is eventually a tipping point where the complexity of expressing the relationship between View, Domain Model, and Physical Storage Model becomes too complex to express correctly with 1 set of entities.
To solve the impedance mismatches of View, Domain and Storage you really need 3 sets of models. Your ViewModels will exactly match your views binding to facilitate it to be easy to work with the UI. So this will frequently have things such as adding a List to populate drop downs with values that are valid for your edit view/action.
In the middle is the Domain Entities, these are the entities that you should validate against your business rules. So you will map to/from them on both sides to/from the view and to/from the storage layer. In these entities is where you could attach your code to do validation. I personally am not a fan of using attributes and coupling validation logic into your domain entities. It does make alot of sense to couple validation attributes into your ViewModels to take advantage of the built in MVC client side validation functionality.
For validation I would recommend using a library like FluentValidation (or your own custom one, they're not hard to write) that lets you separate your business rules from your objects. Although with new features with MVC3 you can do remote validation severside and have it display client side, this is an option to handle true business validation.
Finally you have your storage models. As I said previously I was very zealous on having PI objects being able to be reused through all layers so depending on how you setup your durable storage you might be able to directly use your domain objects. But if you take advantage of tools like Linq2Sql, EntityFramework (EF) etc you will most likely have auto generated models with code for interacting with the data provider so you will want to map your domain objects to your persistence objects.
So wrap all of this up this would be a standard logic flow in MVC actions
User goes to edit product page
EF queries the database to get the existing product information, inside the repository layer the EF data objects are mapped to the Business Entities (BE) so all the data layer methods return BEs and have no external coupling to the EF data objects. (So if you ever change your data provider you don't have to alter a single line of code except for the internal implementation)
The controller gets the Product BE and maps it to a Product ViewModel (VM) and adds collections for the different options that can be set for drop down lists
Return View(theview, ProductVM)
User edits the product and submits the form
Client side validation is passed (useful for date validation / number validation instead of having to submit the form for feedback)
The ProductVM gets mapped back to ProductBE at this point you would validate the business rules along the lines ValidationFactory.Validate(ProductBE), if it's invalid return messages back to view and cancel edit, otherwise continue
You pass the ProductBE into your repository model, inside the internal implementation of the data layer you map the ProductBE to the Product Data Entity for EF and update the database.
2016 edit: removed usages of Interface as separation of concerns and interfaces are entirely orthogonal.
Your issue is here:
public ActionResult Index(IContact enquiry)
MVC in the background has to create a concrete type to pass to the method when calling it. In this method's case, MVC needs to create a type which implements IContract.
Which type? I dunno. Neither does MVC.
Instead of using interfaces in order to be able to mock your models, use normal classes that have protected methods which you can override in mocks.
public class Contact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual void SendEmail(NameValueCollection httpRequestVars = null)
{
//construct email...
}
}
public class MockContact
{
//some shared properties...
public string Name { get; set; }
public bool EmailSent {get;private set;}
public override void SendEmail(NameValueCollection vars = null)
{
EmailSent = true;
}
}
and
public ActionResult Index(Contact enquiry)
It is possible to use interfaces.
See: http://mvcunity.codeplex.com/
Related
I have a multi-layered project. Layers are as follows :
Business
DataAccess
Entities
Core
MvcWebUI
I have a Category class in entity layer:
public class Category : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I also have a CategoryValidator class in the business layer:
public class CategoryValidator : AbstractValidator<Category>
{
public CategoryValidator(IEnumerable<Category> categories)
{
RuleFor(x => x.Name).NotEmpty().MaximumLength(50);
}
}
I have a class in the Core layer for validation.
public class ValidatorTool
{
public static void FluentValidate(IValidator validator, object entity)
{
var result = validator.Validate(entity);
if (result.Errors.Any())
throw new ValidationException(result.Errors);
}
}
I'm performing validation in the Business layer with the FluentValidate method.
But I got stuck when it came to the MvcWebUI layer. According to the FluentValidation documentation, I need to apply an attribute to the entity class as follows:
[Validator(typeof(PersonValidator))]
But since the business layer references the entity layer, I can't reach the CategoryValidator class in the entity layer. (circle reference)
How can I solve this problem?
Did I create the layers incorrectly?
Or should I define the entities as a model again in the Web layer?
Please help me.
Firstly, you probably shouldn't be exposing your entities directly in the UI so I'm going to recommend you create new models there and write validators specifically for them.
Assuming this is wired up correctly, this approach means the validators are automatically fired during the HTTP POST in the MVC app and the model state is automatically updated with a list of errors.
I use this approach extensively, albeit in MVC apps that call an internal API.
In the majority of my cases, the MVC client validates the model and if it passes the checks it then calls the API or service layer after with a DTO / service / entity model which is mapped with Automapper.
The MVC validation is typically light and checks for required fields, lengths, etc.
The API does validation again but it does it on the entity and it goes much deeper this time as it checks for duplicates, invalid entity state, etc. .
One last comment that I would like to add. I wouldn't throw exceptions on validation errors. The UI should use ModelState and the service layer returns a result which the client knows how to merge back into ModelState so either scenario results in the users getting a nice list of errors to deal with.
Hope this helps!
Generally you have 2 ways to perform validation:
Validate View Models (used in most cases)
Internal Business Entities validation (which most often used with 1-st)
For 1-st point you validate view models (on client and server), which placed in your Web project. In that case you should place view model validators in Web project too. [Validator(typeof(PersonValidator))] attribute is needed for linking view model parameter of action and action itself to perform validation before action execution. As in documentation:
Internally, FluentValidation’s MVC integration makes use of a validator factory to know how to work out which validator should be used to validate a particular type. By default, FluentValidation ships with an AttributedValidatorFactory that allows you to link a validator to the type that it validates by decorating the class to validate with an attribute that identifies its corresponding validator.
If you want to validate business models (2-nd point), not/not only view models, you need to place entity validators to Business project and register them in your IoC container (example with Castle Windsor), and change validator tool next way:
public class ValidatorTool
{
public static void FluentValidate<T>(IContainer container, T entity) // replace IContainer with your actual container interface name
{
var validator = container.Resolve<IValidator<T>>();
var result = validator.Validate(entity);
if (result.Errors.Any())
throw new ValidationException(result.Errors);
}
}
I am working on an asp.net mvc application.
This is the approach that i am following right through the application.
Here is my model:
public class EmployeeModel
{
//Properties
// Constructors
// Methods
}
My View: (strongly typed with model Properties) for example : Some Edit View
My Controller:
[httppost]
public void save(Employeemodel m) // ajax call that gets updated model details
{
m.update() // making database call from controller action
}
Are there any serious design issues with my approach of MVC. May be i mis understood MVC?
Is it appropriate to call model methods(m.update() ) in controller action?
Model contains methods that manipulate data ? IS it correct?
please help/suggest the correct approach to follow in MVC
I would recommend you to have separate layer to save data to the database, because its not just MVC that one should follow.
You should use Model(with function only) as a provider whose duty is to perform database task.
ViewModel that hold your entities (properties only)
Controller that can handle your application logic.
View to render HTML/UI.
So its not about MVC rather the best practice one should follow to architect an application.
Further we have several options that we must consider before planning architecture of an application.
Service/Business Layer - Interact b/w Application layer and Repository
Providers/Repository Layer - Interact b/w Service layer and Database
So, it depends on the level of abstraction you want, but as far as MVC concern I would recommend you to have extra layer of separation of ViewModel MVVM.
Its better to ask these type of questions in stachexchange chat.
Example
ViewModel
public class User
{
public Guid Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
}
Model
public class UserModel
{
public void AddUser(User user)
{
//add to the database
}
public void UpdateUser(User user)
{
//update in the database
}
}
Controller
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult UpdateUser(User user)
{
UserModel user = new UserModel();
user.UpdateUser(user);
}
In general practice you should now follow this methodology.
Although this is the default MVC behavior of accepting entire model as an argument you should have a middle layer called as DTO(Data Transfer Object) or ViewModel which represents UI.
And after accepting and validating View model you can transform it to your main business entity.
Offcouse it depends how you have written code in your update method but the main hack is this case is that.... any body can pass any known property value to this method and can hack your system. for example suppose you have following values in your Employeemodel
{
Id,
Name,
SecurityCode,
...
}
and your edit screen just have Name input to update it. Any body can add extra html for SecurityCode and can add bad value to it :)
I hope i didn't confused you.
For start try to implement Repository pattern MVC... Google it and you'll find the basic usage of it. :)
Cheers
Your logic is fine. But as K D said, you should have viewmodel that represents view. I would suggest you write your methods in view model since you will pass only model entity to database or anywhere else.
public class Employee
{
//Properties
}
public class EmployeeViewmodel
{
// Employee model object
//Constructors
//Methods
}
return view("View name", EmployeeViewModel);
So you can update model, pass Employee alone to Database via OR/M ..This is basic flexible approach. You can have a utility model class which contains common data retrival like City, state, gender .. so you wont mix entity with other models.
I'm curious of all of the various ways people are building their ViewModels and why they choose that method.
I can think of several ways here:
-1. Injected repository - the controller loads the model and maps to the ViewModel. Here the ViewModel constructor could take various collections to interally set for ex. in a select list such as:
public CustomerController(ISomeRepository repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public ActionResult Create()
{
CustomerCreateViewModel model = new CustomerCreateViewModel(_repository.GetShipTypes,
_repository.GetStates);
..
..
}
-2. ViewModelBuilder - Either injected or instantiated in the controller with an instance of the injected repository. Called via something like
>var orderViewModel = orderViewModelBuilder.WithStates().Build(orderId);
or,
var orderViewModel = orderViewModelBuilder.WithStates().Build(orderId);
-3. Directly in controller (no code required - its messy)
-4. Some other service (injected or not) that returns domain model which the controller then maps or a ViewModel (anyone doing this to return a view model that isn't specifically named/noted as a ViewModel builder class?)
public JobCreateViewModel BuildJobCreateViewModel(int parentId)
{
JobCreateViewModel model = new JobCreateViewModel();
model.JobStatus = _unitOfWork.JobRepository.GetJobStatuses();
model.States=_unitOfWork.StateRepository.GetAll();
return model;
}
Now on the return trip - regarding validating your view models - are you inheriting from a base ViewModel class for standard validations, or copying your validations (ex. data annotation attributes) between all of your ViewModels, or simply relying on server side validation so it can all be validated againt your domain object?
Any others? Anything better? Why?
EDIT
Based on a link below, I did find a nice article from Jimmy Bogard on the architecture of ViewModels. While it doesn't address the question above directly, it's a great reference for anyone coming here for ViewModel information.
http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/06/30/how-we-do-mvc-view-models/
I inject a service into the controller, not a repository, and then use AutoMapper to convert it into a view model. The benefit of the service layer in this case is that it could aggregate multiple simple operations from one or more repositories into a single operation exposing a domain model. Example:
private readonly ICustomerService _service;
public CustomerController(ICustomerService service)
{
_service = service;
}
[AutoMap(typeof(Customer), typeof(CustomerViewModel))]
public ActionResult Create(int id)
{
Customer customer = _service.GetCustomer(id);
return View(customer);
}
in this example AutoMap is a custom action filter that I can write which executes after the controller action, inspects the returned object and uses defined AutoMapper mappings to map it to the specified destination type. So the view gets the corresponding CustomerViewModel as model type. Would have been equivalent to:
public ActionResult Create(int id)
{
Customer customer = _service.GetCustomer(id);
CustomerViewModel vm = Mapper.Map<Customer, CustomerViewModel>(customer);
return View(vm);
}
it's just that it is too much plumbing and repetitive code that could be centralized.
I would also recommend you watching the putting your controllers on a diet video from Jimmy Bogard.
I just finished a project where we did a variation on #4. We had a service class injected into the controller. The service class held dependencies on the repository and a model builder class (we called it model factory).
The controller called into the service class, which handled business validation logic, and then fetched view models from the appropriate factory. The models themselves relied on data annotations for input validation.
It worked really well for our team. There was enough separation of concerns to allow the devs to do their work without affecting one another, but it was manageable enough to understand what was going on.
It's the first time we tried it and we'll be sticking with it. I'm interested to see how others respond.
Our method is to inject the repository in to the controller and map it to the ViewModel using Automapper http://automapper.org/. Our ViewModels contain data annotation attributes to allow the validation to occur on the client.
We call methods on the repository which return Domain objects (Entity Framework). The domain objects are mapped to the ViewModel. We tend to use the same ViewModel for edits and adds so the data annotations are needed once. In its simplest form it looks like the following code:
public ActionResult List(int custId, int projId)
{
var users = _userRepository.GetByCustomerId(custId);
var userList = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<CMUser>, IEnumerable<UserListViewModel>>(users);
return View(userList);
}
I use a service layer that hides the domain model from the controller returning ViewModels from the service methods. This allows me to make changes to the domain model without impacting the client.
For those that create ViewModels (for use by typed views) in ASP.NET MVC, do you prefer to fetch the data from a service/repository from within the ViewModel, or the controller classes?
For example, we started by having ViewModels essentially being DTOs and allowing our Controllers to fetch the data (grossly oversimplified example assumes that the user can only change employee name):
public class EmployeeViewModel
{
public String Name; //posted back
public int Num; //posted back
public IEnumerable<Dependent> Dependents; //static
public IEnumerable<Spouse> Spouses; //static
}
public class EmployeeController()
{
...
public ActionResult Employee(int empNum)
{
Models.EmployeeViewModel model = new Models.EmployeeViewModel();
model.Name = _empSvc.FetchEmployee(empNum).Name;
model.Num = empNum;
model.Dependents = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(empNum);
model.Spouses = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(empNum);
return View(model);
}
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Employee(Models.EmployeeViewModel model)
{
if (!_empSvc.ValidateAndSaveName(model.Num, model.Name))
{
model.Dependents = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(model.Num);
model.Spouses = _peopleSvc.FetchDependentsForView(model.Num);
return View(model);
}
this.RedirectToAction(c => c.Index());
}
}
This all seemed fine until we started creating large views (40+ fields) with many drop downs and such. Since the screens would have a GET and POST action (with POST returning a view if there was a validation error), we'd be duplicating code and making ViewModels larger than they probably should be.
I'm thinking the alternative would be to Fetch the data via the Service within the ViewModel. My concern is that we'd then have some data populated from the ViewModel and some from the Controller (e.g. in the example above, Name would be populated from the Controller since it is a posted value, while Dependents and Spouses would be populated via some type of GetStaticData() function in the ViewModel).
Thoughts?
I encountered the same issue. I started creating classes for each action when the code got too big for the action methods. Yes you will have some data retrieval in classes and some in the controller methods. The alternative is to have all the data retrieval in classes, but half the classes you won't really need, they will have been created for consistency sake or have all the data retrieval in the controller methods, but again, some of those methods will be too complex and needed to have been abstracted into classes... so pick your poison. I would rather have a little inconsistency and have the right solution for the job.
As for putting behavior into the ViewModel, I don't, the point of the ViewModel is to be a thin class for setting and extracting values from the View.
There have been cases where I've put conversion methods in the ViewModel. For instance I need to convert the ViewModel to the corresponding entity or I need to load the ViewModel with data from the Entity.
To answer your question, I prefer to retrieve data from with in the controller/action methods.
Typically with DropDowns, I create a dropdown service. DropDowns tend to be the same data that spans views. With the dropdowns in a service I can use them on other views and/or Cache them.
Depending on the layout, 40 plus fields could create a cluttered view. Depending the type of data, I would try to span that many fields across multiple views with some sort of tabbed or wizard interface.
There's more than that ;-) You can fetch in model binder or action filter. For the second option, check Jimmy Bogard's blog somewhere around here. I personally do it in model binders. I use ViewModel like this: My custom ASP.NET MVC entity binding: is it a good solution?. It is processed by my custom model binder:
public object BindModel(ControllerContext c, BindingContext b)
{
var id = b.ValueProvider[b.ModelName]; // don't remember exact syntax
var repository = ServiceLocator.GetInstance(GetRepositoryType(b.ModelType));
var obj = repository.Get(id);
if (obj == null)
b.ModelState.AddModelError(b.ModelName, "Not found in database");
return obj;
}
public ActionResult Action(EntityViewModel<Order> order)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
...;
}
You can also see an example of model binder doing repository access in S#arp Architecture.
As for static data in view models, I'm still exploring approaches. For example, you can have your view models remember the entities instead of lists, and
public class MyViewModel
{
public MyViewModel(Order order, IEmployeesSvc _svc)
{
}
public IList<Employee> GetEmployeesList()
{
return _svc.GetEmployeesFor(order.Number);
}
}
You decide how you inject _svc into ViewModel, but it's basically the same as you do for controller. Just beware that ViewModel is also created by MVC via parameterless constructor, so you either use ServiceLocator or extend MVC for ViewModel creation - for example, inside your custom model binder. Or you can use Jimmy Bogard's approach with AutoMapper which does also support IoC containers.
The common approach here is that whenever I see repetative code, I look to eliminate it. 100 controller actions doing domain-viewmodel marshalling plus repository lookup is a bad case. Single model binder doing it in generic way is a good one.
I wouldn't be fetching data from the database in your ViewModel. The ViewModel exists to promote separation of concerns (between your View and your Model). Tangling up persistance logic in there kind of defeats the purpose.
Luckily, the ASP.NET MVC framework gives us more integration points, specifically the ModelBinder.
I've got an implementation of a generic ModelBinder pulling information from the service layer at:-
http://www.iaingalloway.com/going-further-a-generic-servicelayer-modelbinder
It doesn't use a ViewModel, but that's easily fixed. It's by no means the only implementation. For a real-world project, you're probably better off with a less generic, more customised solution.
If you're diligent, your GET methods don't even need to know that the service layer exists.
The solution probably looks something like:-
Controller action method:-
public ActionResult Details(MyTypeIndexViewModel model)
{
if( ModelState.IsValid )
{
return View(model);
}
else
{
// Handle the case where the ModelState is invalid
// usually because they've requested MyType/Details/x
// and there's no matching MyType in the repository
// e.g. return RedirectToAction("Index")
}
}
ModelBinder:-
public object BindModel
(
ControllerContext controllerContext,
BindingContext bindingContext
)
{
// Get the Primary Key from the requestValueProvider.
// e.g. bindingContext.ValueProvider["id"]
int id = ...;
// Get an instance of your service layer via your
// favourite dependancy injection framework.
// Or grab the controller's copy e.g.
// (controllerContext.Controller as MyController).Service
IMyTypeService service = ...;
MyType myType = service.GetMyTypeById(id)
if (myType == null)
{
// handle the case where the PK has no matching MyType in the repository
// e.g. bindingContext.ModelState.AddModelError(...)
}
MyTypeIndexViewModel model = new MyTypeIndexViewModel(myType);
// If you've got more repository calls to make
// (e.g. populating extra fields on the model)
// you can do that here.
return model;
}
ViewModel:-
public class MyTypeIndexViewModel
{
public MyTypeIndexViewModel(MyType source)
{
// Bind all the properties of the ViewModel in here, or better
// inherit from e.g. MyTypeViewModel, bind all the properties
// shared between views in there and chain up base(source)
}
}
Build your service layer, and register your ModelBinder as normal.
Here's another solution: http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/06/29/how-we-do-mvc-view-models.aspx
Main points there:
Mapping is done by a mediator - in this case it is AutoMapper but it can be your own class (though more to code). This keeps both Domain and ViewModel concentrated on the domain/presentation logic. The mediator (mapper) will contain (mostly automatic) logic for mapping, including injected services.
Mapping is applied automatically, all you do is tell the action filter the source/destination types - very clean.
(Seems to be important for you) AutoMapper supports nested mappings/types, so you can have your ViewModel combined of several independent view models, so that your "screen DTO" is not messy.
Like in this model:
public class WholeViewModel
{
public Part1ViewModel ModelPart1 { get; set; }
public Part2ViewModel ModelPart2 { get; set; }
}
you re-use mappings for specific parts of your View, and you don't write any new line of code, since there're already mappings for the partial view models.
If you don't want AutoMapper, you have have IViewModelMapper interfaces, and then your IoC container will help your action filter to find appropriate
container.Resolve(typeof(IViewModelMapper<>).MakeGenericType(mysourcetype, mydesttype))
and it will also provide any required external services to that mapper (this is possible with AutoMapper, too). But of course AutoMapper can do recursions and anyway, why write additional AutoMapper ;-)
Consider passing your services into the custom ViewModel on its constructor (ala Dependency Injection). That removes the model population code from your controller and allows it to focus on controlling the logical flow of the application. Custom ViewModels are an ideal place to abstract the preparation of things like SelectLists that your droplists will depend on.
Lots of code in the controller for things like retrieving data isn't considered a best practice. The controller's primary responsibility is to "control" the flow of the application.
Submitting this one late... Bounty is almost over. But...
Another mapper to look at is Automapper: http://www.codeplex.com/AutoMapper
And overview on how to use it: http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/01/22/automapper-the-object-object-mapper.aspx
I really like it's syntax.
// place this somewhere in your globals, or base controller constructor
Mapper.CreateMap<Employee, EmployeeViewModel>();
Now, in your controller, I would use multiple viewmodels. This enforces DRY by allowing you to reuse those viewmodels elsewhere in your application. I would not bind them all to 1 viewmodel. I would refactor to something like:
public class EmployeeController()
{
private IEmployeeService _empSvc;
private ISpouseService _peopleSvc;
public EmployeeController(
IEmployeeService empSvc, ISpouseService peopleSvc)
{
// D.I. hard at work! Auto-wiring up our services. :)
_empSvc = empSvc;
_peopleSvc = peopleSvc;
// setup all ViewModels here that the controller would use
Mapper.CreateMap<Employee, EmployeeViewModel>();
Mapper.CreateMap<Spouse, SpouseViewModel>();
}
public ActionResult Employee(int empNum)
{
// really should have some validation here that reaches into the domain
//
var employeeViewModel =
Mapper.Map<Employee, EmployeeViewModel>(
_empSvc.FetchEmployee(empNum)
);
var spouseViewModel =
Mapper.Map<Spouses, SpousesViewModel>(
_peopleSvc.FetchSpouseByEmployeeID(empNum)
);
employeeViewModel.SpouseViewModel = spouseViewModel;
return View(employeeViewModel);
}
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Employee(int id, FormCollection values)
{
try
{
// always post to an ID, which is the employeeID
var employee = _empSvc.FetchEmployee(id);
// and bind using the built-in UpdateModel helpers.
// this will throw an exception if someone is posting something
// they shouldn't be posting. :)
UpdateModel(employee);
// save employee here
this.RedirectToAction(c => c.Index());
}
catch
{
// check your domain model for any errors.
// check for any other type of exception.
// fail back to the employee screen
RedirectToAction(c => c.Employee(id));
}
}
}
I generally try to stay away from saving multiple entities on a controller action. Instead, I would refactor the employee domain object to have AddSpouse() and SaveSpouse() methods, that would take an object of Spouse. This concept is known as AggregateRoots, controlling all dependancies from the root - which is the Employee() object. But, that is just me.
Related: What’s the best way to implement field validation using ASP.NET MVC?
Let's suppose a solution with the following projects:
Foo; // the MVC web project
Foo.Models;
Foo.Repositories;
Foo.Services;
Foo.Models is the domain of the application with all the entities, doesn't matter if using EF, NH, POCO or whatever. Here's an example:
public class User
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
In Foo.Repositories there is a UserRepository and in Foo.Services there is a UserService.
In the web application let's consider a model binder like following:
public class UserBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
//...
}
I see three different options on where to put the validation:
In Foo.Models like the following:
public class User
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
public ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>> ValidateErrors()
{
//Validate if Username, Email and Password has been passed
}
}
In Foo.Services like:
public class UserService
{
public ICollection<KeyValuePair<string, string>> ValidateErrors()
{
//Validate if Username, Email and Password has been passed
}
}
In Foo inside the model binder:
public class UserBinder : DefaultModelBinder
{
protected override void OnModelUpdated(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
var user = (User)bindingContext.Model;
// validate everything here
base.OnModelUpdated(controllerContext, bindingContext);
}
}
Another thing to notice is that considering the first 2 options [Model and Service] there is another decision to make: ValidateErrors method can be called directly on the controller or inside the Binder.
I have 2 questions on the scenario:
Should the validation be:
In the Model being called from the controller?
In the Model being called from the binder?
In the Service being called from the controller?
In the Service being called from the binder?
Directly in the Binder?
Any other idea?
All the above scenario discuss about the User creation. But what about User logon?
Let's say user uses the username and password to login in the application, so it won't need to validate the e-mail.
Where this validation should be?
In the Model being called from the controller?
In the Service being called from the controller?
Any other idea?
Check out the ASP.NET MVC Contact Manager Sample Application it has a very good architecture im my opinion
http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/tutorial-26-cs.aspx'>http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/tutorial-26-cs.aspx
I'm a big fan of putting calling the validation from the controllers and having the validation routine return an ActionResult so the controller can know what to do with the result.
For what it's worth, here's what I have scrounged up in my current project:
I have Models, Repositories (you can call them Services if you like), and ViewModels. I try to avoid writing custom model binders because (a) it's boring and (b) a strange place to put validation, IMHO. To me, a model binder is just taking items from the request and shoving them into an object. PHP, for example, doesn't do any validation when plucking items from a header into the $_POST array; it's the thing we plug the array into that cares about its contents.
My Model objects generally never allow themselves to enter an invalid state. This means that required parameters are passed in during constructors and properties will throw exceptions if they're attempted to be set with invalid values. And, in general, I try to design my Model objects to be immutable. For example, I have an Address object for mailing addresses that is constructed with an AddressBuilder object with looks at the field requirements for a given country by inspecting an AddressScheme that can be retrieved from the AddressSchemeRepository. Phew. But I think it's a good example because it takes something conceptually simple ("validate a mailing address") and makes it complicated in real world usage ("we accept addresses from over 30 countries, and those formatting rules are sitting in a database, not in my code").
Since constructing this Model object is kind of a pain--as well it should be, since it's being quite particular about the data that gets loaded into it--I have a, say, InputAddressViewModel object that my view binds to. The InputAddressViewModel implements IDataErrorInfo so that I get ASP.NET MVC's DefaultModelBinder to add errors to the ModelState automatically. For simple validation routines that I know ahead of time (phone number formatting, first name required, e-mail address format), I can implement these right in the InputAddressViewModel.
The other advantage of having a view model is that because it is shamelessly tailored to a particular view, your real model is more reusable because it doesn't have to make any weird concessions to make it suitable for UI display (e.g., needs to implement INotifyPropertyChanged or Serializable or any of that mess).
Other validation errors about the address I won't know about until I interact with my AddressScheme in my actual Model. Those errors will be there controller's job of orchestrating into the ModelState. Something like:
public ActionResult InputAddress(InputAddressViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
// "Front-line" validation passed; let's execute the save operation
// in the our view model
var result = model.Execute();
// The view model returns a status code to help the
// controller decide where to redirect the user next
switch (result.Status)
{
case InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult.Saved:
return RedirectToAction("my-work-is-done-here");
case InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult.UserCorrectableError:
// Something went wrong after we interacted with the
// datastore, like a bogus Canadian postal code or
// something. Our view model will have updated the
// Error property, but we need to call TryUpdateModel()
// to get these new errors to get added to
// the ModelState, since they were just added and the
// model binder ran before this method even got called.
TryUpdateModel(model);
break;
}
// Redisplay the input form to the user, using that nifty
// Html.ValidationMessage to convey model state errors
return View(model);
}
}
The switch may seem repulsive, but I think it makes sense: the view model is just a plain old class and doesn't have any knowledge of the Request or the HttpContext. This makes the logic of the view model easy to test in isolation without resorting to mocking and leaves the controller code left to, well, control by interpreting the model's result in a manner that makes sense on a Web site--it could redirect, it could set cookies, etc.
And the InputAddressViewModel's Execute() methods looks something like (some people would insist on putting this code into a Service object that the controller would call, but to me the view model will do so much finagling of the data to make it fit the real model that it makes sense to put it here):
public InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult Execute()
{
InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult result;
if (this.errors.Count > 0)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(
"Don't call me when I have errors");
}
// This is just my abstraction for clearly demarcating when
// I have an open connection to a highly contentious resource,
// like a database connection or a network share
using (ConnectionScope cs = new ConnectionScope())
{
var scheme = new AddressSchemeRepository().Load(this.Country);
var builder = new AddressBuilder(scheme)
.WithCityAs(this.City)
.WithStateOrProvinceAs(this.StateOrProvince);
if (!builder.CanBuild())
{
this.errors.Add("Blah", builder.Error);
result = new InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult()
{
Status = InputAddressViewModelExecuteStatus
.UserCorrectableError
};
}
else
{
var address = builder.Build();
// save the address or something...
result = new InputAddressViewModelExecuteResult()
{
Status = InputAddressViewModelExecuteStatus.Success,
Address = address
};
}
}
return result;
}
Does this make sense? Is it a best practice? I have no idea; it's certainly verbose; it's what I just came up with in the past two weeks after thinking about this problem. I think you're going to have some duplication of validation--your UI can't be a complete imbecile and not know what fields are required or not before submitting them to your model/repositories/services/whatever--otherwise the form could simply generate itself.
I should add that the impetus for this is that I've always kind of detested the Microsoft mentality of "set one property -> validate one property" because nothing ever works like that in reality. And you always end up getting an invalid object persisted because someone forgot to call IsValid or some such on the way to the data store. So another reason for having a view model is that it tailors itself to this concession so we get a lot of CRUD work of pulling items from the request, validation errors in the model state, etc quite easily without having to compromise the integrity of our model itself. If I have an Address object in hand, I know it's good. If I have an InputAddressViewModel object in hand, I know I need to call it's Execute() method to get that golden Address object.
I'll look forward to reading some of the other answers.
After a lot of research I think I got the answers to my question so i decided to share.
The validation code should be on Model.
As per the idea of "thin controller, fat model" AND considering that a model would know what it needs to validate or not.
For example, let's say I decide to user the Foo.Models in other solution but I decide NOT to use any other project and the validation is in other project.
I'll have to re-code the entire validation in this case what is a total waste of time, right?
OK. The validation code must be in the model but where should it be called?
This validation must be called where you're saving it to your database or file.
As in the proposed scenario I'm considering the repository as a domain, then we should consider putting the validation just before the change saving [in this example I'm using Entity Framework but it's not necessary, it's just to show]:
public class UserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
public void Create(User user)
{
user.Validate();
var db = dbFooEntities();
db.AddToUsers(user);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
As per MS recommendation, the model validation should raise an exception and the controller must populate the ModelState with the errors found [I'll try to update this answer with a sample code on that as soon as I finish my app].
With that we have an answer for question #1.
What about question #2, regarding the login validation?
As login is not a situation where you're persisting your data, the validation should stay on the Service since logging in is a service in this case.
So, the answers for the question are:
In the Model being called from the REPOSITORY [that is called by the controller]
In the Service being called from the controller
This is very interesting and it helps me a lot in deciding where to put validation.
currently I feel the most for each model implementing a "Validate" method, which is called from a Repository or a Service.
However, what about validating if a chosen username is unique?
Should that code be inside the User model, or inside the UserService class, or in the UserRepository class?
If the uniqueness validation should be inside the User model, then the User model should have access to either the UserService or the UserRepository class. Is that OK, or is that against any "best practice" pattern?
For example:
class User
{
string Username { get; set; }
string Email { get; set; }
string Password { get; set; } // hashed and salted of course :)
IEnumerable<RuleViolation> Validate()
{
List<RuleViolation> violations = new List<RuleViolation>();
IUserService service = MyApplicationService.UserService; // MyApplicationService is a singleton class, especialy designed so that the User model can access application services
// Username is required
if ( string.IsNullOrEmpty(Username) )
violations.Add(new RuleViolation("Username", "Username is required"));
// Username must be unique: Should uniqueness be validated here?
else if( !service.IsUsernameAvailable(Username)
violations.Add(new RuleViolation("Username", "Username is already taken!"));
// Validate email etc...
return violations;
}
}
interface IUserRepository
{
void Save(User item);
}
interface IUserService
{
IUserRepository UserRepository { get; }
void Save(User item);
}
class UserService : IUserService
{
public UserService(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
}
IUserRepository UserRepository { get; private set}
public void Save(User user)
{
IEnumerable<RuleViolation> violations = user.Validate();
if(violations.Count() > 0)
throw new RuleViolationException(violations); // this will be catched by the Controller, which will copy the violations to the ModelState errors collection. But the question is, should we validat the user here, or in the UserRepository class?
UserRepository.Save(user);
}
}
class UserRepository : IUserRepository
{
void Save(User item)
{
IEnumerable<RuleViolation> violations = user.Validate();
if(violations.Count() > 0)
throw new RuleViolationException(violations); // this will be catched by the Controller, which will copy the violations to the ModelState errors collection. But the question is, should we validate the user here, or in the UserService class?
UserRepository.Save(user);
}
}
My guess would be that validation should be as close to the model as possible. So I'd say that the UserRepository should be the one responsible for validating it's model being added.
The most important queston for me is: Should the User model know about the IUserService / IUserRepository interfaces so that it can validate the Username uniqueness?
Or should the IUserService service validate uniqueness?
I'm curious about your views on this!
I'm using the DataAnnotations attributes in combination with a MVC model binder to do my validation and its pretty awesome. Since I treat User input as Command View Models its the cleanest way to keep domain clean from outside concerns.
http://bradwilson.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/dataannotations-and-aspnet-mvc.html
This also allows me to take advantage of AutoForm by LosTechies.com:
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/hex/archive/2009/06/17/opinionated-input-builders-part-8-the-auto-form.aspx
And I expect the client side validation tools in MVC 2, VS 2010 to take advantage of these attributes as well.
So I'm whipping out user input view models, commands, at a furious pace right now and tying them into not only the AutoForm functionality but my own custom UI templates to get AutoGrid and AutoOutput from these attributes as well.
Nothing is better than saying:
Html.AutoForm(Model);
Or
Html.AutoGrid(Model.Products);
And getting validation and html generation in a very DRY and orthogonal way. My controllers are light, my domain pristine, and my time is unoccupied by writing the same if( string.IsNullOrEmpty() ) method on every object with a FirstName property.
For me the approach was not as "philosophical" as others have written about. I'm trying to be very pragmatic about MVC development and I get a ton of bang for the buck out of these bits.