Apparently it is possible to dynamically attach DataAnnotation attributes to object properties at runtime and as such achieve dynamic validation.
Can someone provide code sample on this?
MVC has a hook to provide your own ModelValidatorProvider. By default MVC 2 uses a sub class of ModelValidatorProvider called DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider that is able to use System.DataAnnotations.ComponentModel.ValidationAttribute attributes for validation.
The DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider uses reflection to find all the ValidationAttributes and simply loops through the collection to validate your models. All you need to do is override a method called GetValidators and inject your own attributes from whichever source you choose. I use this technique to do convention validations, the properties with DataType.Email attribute always gets passed through a regex, and use this technique to pull information from the database to apply more restrictive validations for "non-power" users.
The following example simply says "always make any FirstName properties required":
public class CustomMetadataValidationProvider : DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider
{
protected override IEnumerable<ModelValidator> GetValidators(ModelMetadata metadata, ControllerContext context, IEnumerable<Attribute> attributes)
{
//go to db if you want
//var repository = ((MyBaseController) context.Controller).RepositorySomething;
//find user if you need it
var user = context.HttpContext.User;
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(metadata.PropertyName) && metadata.PropertyName == "FirstName")
attributes = new List<Attribute>() {new RequiredAttribute()};
return base.GetValidators(metadata, context, attributes);
}
}
All you have to do is register the provider in your Global.asax.cs file:
protected void Application_Start()
{
ModelValidatorProviders.Providers.Add(new CustomMetadataValidationProvider());
AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
}
The end result:
with this model:
public class Person
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public DateTime Birthday { get; set; }
}
In your global.asax you have to clear the ModelValidatorProviders before adding the new one. Otherwise it will add every annotation two times which will give you a "Validation type names in unobtrusive client validation rules must be unique."-error.
protected void Application_Start()
{
ModelValidatorProviders.Providers.Clear();
ModelValidatorProviders.Providers.Add(new CustomMetadataValidationProvider());
AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
}
The approach of using a custom MetadataValidationProvider with an overridden GetValidators has a few weaknesses:
Some attributes such as DisplayAttribute aren't related to validation, so adding them at the validation stage doesn't work.
It may not be future-proof; a framework update could cause it to stop working.
If you want your dynamically-applied data annotations to work consistently, you can subclass DataAnnotationsModelMetadataProvider and DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider. After doing this, replace the framework's ones via ModelMetadataProviders.Current and ModelValidatorProviders.Providers at application start-up. (You could do it in Application_Start.)
When you subclass the built-in providers, a systematic and hopefully future-proof way to apply your own attributes is to override GetTypeDescriptor. I've done this successfully, but it involved creating an implementation of ICustomTypeDescriptor and PropertyDescriptor, which required a lot of code and time.
I don't think you can add attributes to members at runtime, but you could probably use a custom metadata provider to handle this for you.
You should check out this blog post.
Related
how can I use a Required Validation in a property Prop2 only if the Prop1 is true?
Ex:
public bool Prop1 { get; set; }
[Required] // I need this validation only if the Prop1 is true.
public string Prop2 { get; set; }
Any idea? I need on client and server side.
Thanks
You could use MVC FoolProof Validation framework
It has useful feature like
[RequiredIf]
[RequiredIfNot]
[RequiredIfTrue]
[RequiredIfFalse]
[RequiredIfEmpty]
[RequiredIfNotEmpty]
[RequiredIfRegExMatch]
[RequiredIfNotRegExMatch]
[Is]
[EqualTo]
[NotEqualTo]
[GreaterThan]
[LessThan]
[GreaterThanOrEqualTo]
[LessThanOrEqualTo]
Hope this would help you!
There are two parts to this. First, you have to write a required attribute that's only required if the other property meets your criteria.
You'd have to do something like:
public class RequiredComparerAttribute : RequiredAttribute
{
public OtherProperty { get; set; }
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
// TODO: use reflection to validate other property as PropertyInfo
// or validate it's value after it is decided to be valid
foreach (ValidationAttribute va in property
.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ValidationAttribute), true)
.OfType<ValidationAttribute>())
{
if (!va.IsValid(value))
{
return false; // not required
}
}
return true; // required
}
}
Then, in Application_Start in the Global.asax, you'll have to register the validator, which you can just reuse the RequiredAttribute's validator:
DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider
.RegisterAdapter(typeof(RequiredComparerAttribute),
typeof(RequiredAttributeAdapter));
If you want to add your own validator, you'll have to write a custom validator. Phil Haack has an example on his blog: http://haacked.com/archive/2009/11/19/aspnetmvc2-custom-validation.aspx
Edit: Take a look at CompareAttribute in .NET Reflector for a sense of how to get the value of the OtherProperty. CompareAttribute also implements IClientValidatable to provide those validation rules needed on the client side.
I don't think CompareAttribute will work for you because you have to validate that a value is required based on content of another property, not compare the equality of two properties.
Edit2: What does the Validation provider do?
It adds rules to the form and provides messages for those rules. You can see exactly how the RequiredAttributeAdapter does this by downloading the MVC 3 source. To understand what it does on the client side, you can open the MVC 3 page in Google Chrome, hit CTRL+SHIFT+J to bring up a developer tools window and enter:
$('form:first').data().unobtrusiveValidation.options
The rules object inside options specifies how to validate each item and the message object specifies the error message that will be displayed for each validation error.
Edit3: Full example
Since answering this question, I've written a blog post with a full example of creating a custom attribute on the client (unobtrusive validation) and server. The blog post is here. This example is for a 'contains' attribute, but it should be pretty easy to modify to become a required comparison.
You can write a custom validator do to this job.
Let me know if you need help to do it.
I have this custom validation attribute called AsteriskRequiredAttribute which derives from the Required attribute and it's function is only to show an asterisk (*) when textbox field lacks value.
MVC3's unobtrusive JS validation seems to work perfectly out of the bow with the Required attribute but not with my custom attribute - nothing happens.
What goes?
http://samipoimala.com/it/2010/11/29/unobtrusive-client-validation-in-asp-net-mvc-3/
It turns out that implementing a custom attribute is really an easy task. You implement your own class that inherits System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationAttribute and implements System.Web.Mvc.IClientValidatable. So you need to do three things.
1) Override public bool IsValid(object value)
This method will be run when the validation is done on the server (for example, if the client does not have javascript enabled). This is all you need to do if you don’t need client validation.
2) Create a class that inherits from ModelClientValidationRule. This is usually very simple. Here’s an example how to enable email validation on the client:
public class ModelClientValidationEmailRule : ModelClientValidationRule
{
public ModelClientValidationEmailRule(string errorMessage)
{
base.ErrorMessage = errorMessage;
base.ValidationType = "email";
}
}
3) Implement public IEnumerable GetClientValidationRules(ModelMetadata metadata, ControllerContext context)
This is also usually very easy to implement, here’s the example on email validation:
public IEnumerable<ModelClientValidationRule> GetClientValidationRules(ModelMetadata metadata, ControllerContext context)
{
yield return new ModelClientValidationEmailRule(FormatErrorMessage(metadata.GetDisplayName()));
}
This is all you need do to write your own attribute to enable validation using the readymade validation rules on jQuery Validate plugin.
Let's say I have an User entity and I would want to set it's CreationTime property in the constructor to DateTime.Now. But being a unit test adopter I don't want to access DateTime.Now directly but use an ITimeProvider :
public class User {
public User(ITimeProvider timeProvider) {
// ...
this.CreationTime = timeProvider.Now;
}
// .....
}
public interface ITimeProvider {
public DateTime Now { get; }
}
public class TimeProvider : ITimeProvider {
public DateTime Now { get { return DateTime.Now; } }
}
I am using NInject 2 in my ASP.NET MVC 2.0 application. I have a UserController and two Create methods (one for GET and one for POST). The one for GET is straight forward but the one for POST is not so straight and not so forward :P because I need to mess with the model binder to tell it to get a reference of an implementation of ITimeProvider in order to be able to construct an user instance.
public class UserController : Controller {
[HttpGet]
public ViewResult Create() {
return View();
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(User user) {
// ...
}
}
I would also like to be able to keep all the features of the default model binder.
Any chance to solve this simple/elegant/etc? :D
A couple of observations:
Don't inject dependencies just to query them in the constructor
There's no reason to inject an ITimeProvider into a user just to invoke Now immediately. Just inject the creation time directly instead:
public User(DateTime creationTime)
{
this.CreationTime = creationTime;
}
A really good rule of thumb related to DI is that constructors should perform no logic.
Don't use DI with ModelBinders
An ASP.NET MVC ModelBinder is a really poor place to do DI, particularly because you can't use Constructor Injection. The only remaining option is the static Service Locator anti-pattern.
A ModelBinder translates HTTP GET and POST information to a strongly typed object, but conceptually these types aren't domain objects, but similar to Data Transfer Objects.
A much better solution for ASP.NET MVC is to forego custom ModelBinders completely and instead explicitly embrace that what you receive from the HTTP connection is not your full domain object.
You can have a simple lookup or mapper to retrieve your domain object in your controller:
public ActionResult Create(UserPostModel userPost)
{
User u = this.userRepository.Lookup(userPost);
// ...
}
where this.userRepository is an injected dependency.
How about instead of using an ITimeProvider try this:
public class User
{
public Func<DateTime> DateTimeProvider = () => DateTime.Now;
public User()
{
this.CreationTime = DateTimeProvider();
}
}
And in your unit test:
var user = new User();
user.DateTimeProvider = () => new DateTime(2010, 5, 24);
I know that this is not very elegant but instead of messing with the model binder this could be a solution. If this doesn't feel like a good solution you could implement a custom model binder and override the CreateModel method where you would inject the dependencies in the constructor of the model.
Another option is to create a different class to represent users that haven't been persisted yet that doesn't have a creation date property at all.
Even if CreationDate is one of User's invariants, it can be nullable in your view model - and you can set it farther downstream, in your controller or domain layer.
After all, it probably doesn't matter, but should the creation date attribute really represent the moment you construct a user instance, or would it be more appropriate for it to represent the moment a user submits their data?
I have a custom ViewModel defined as :
public class SampleFormViewModel
{
public SampleFormViewModel(SelectList companies, Widget widget)
{
Companies = companies;
Widget = widget;
}
public SelectList Companies { get; private set; }
public Widget Widget { get; private set; }
}
In my Edit POST handler I have the following entry:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Edit(SampleFormViewModel model)
{
Edit form is set up as:
Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Sample.Web.Models.SampleFormViewModel>"
And it just blows up, not sure what’s going on, has the following error:
No parameterless constructor defined for this object.
Certain I’m missing something really obvious here. Some background, the GET works perfectly and display the dropdown from the SelectList as expected.
I’m guessing the auto-binding back to the custom view model is what is failing but not sure what to do about it.
You need to have a parameterless constructor and I believe that the properties need to have public setters. The default binder creates the object using a constructor that takes no parameters, then uses reflection on the public properties to set values from the form/query parameters.
public class SampleFormViewModel
{
public SampleFormViewModel() { }
public SelectList Companies { get; set; }
public Widget Widget { get; set; }
}
I suspect, though, that what you really want to do is not get the view model, but the underlying Widget model and select list value on form post. I don't think the binder will be able to reconstruct a SelectList on post since it only has the selected value in the parameters.
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Edit( int CompanyID, Widget widget )
{
}
MVC requires, on strongly typed views, that the view can create the class used on that view. This means a constructor without any parameters. And this makes sense. Folks new to MVC will see similar "huh?" issues when they forget/fail to make parameters public and all such related errors that popup when the view attempts to put itself together (as opposed to a compiler error).
But what is "interesting" in this class of parameterless constructor problems is when a property of your class also does NOT have a parameter-free constructor. I guess this is the pessimistic approach?
Having spent some learning time on the SelectList class - a class specific to MVC - I wanted to hopefully help some folks save a few minutes/hours.
This really important tool/class for dropdown list creation, has the following constructors:
public SelectList(IEnumerable items);
public SelectList(IEnumerable items, object selectedValue);
public SelectList(IEnumerable items, string dataValueField, string dataTextField);
public SelectList(IEnumerable items, string dataValueField, string dataTextField, object selectedValue);
..and therefore, if these are properties on your class (the one used for the view), MVC will give you the elusive "No parameterless constructor" error.
BUT, if you create something like a helper class, cut-n-paste the exact code from your original class, and then make that helper class a parameter (NOT a get/set) on your original class; you're good to go.
And in this manner, you can use a single view for gets and posts. Which is more beautiful :)
Personnally, I'd have either created the compiler to recognize the associations and requirements of strong typed views, or let the dropdown (or other "customer" of the SelectList) just fail to work rather then wonder if there's a specific level of recursive checking on paramerterless constructors.
Thankfully, the current version seems to only be top-level. Feels like a hack and I hope it's by design.
HTH.
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.