So I have been using data annotations for my validation in an MVC project and they seem to work in most scenarios.
Here are two examples in my current project where they don't seem to fit and I am unsure of the best place to put the validation.
1) I have a Join League page that contains a form where the logged in user enters their team name and clicks to join the league. When they submit the form i need to make sure that the current user doesn't already have a team in the league. So it basically needs to query the db for that user id and league id to make sure no team exists for the user. My ViewModel does not contain user id, since it is not relevant to the view.
2) On this same page, I also need to make sure the team name is unique. This is easy if you are just looking to see if it exists in a table. You create a custom validation attribute that query's a table for the value of the field. However i need to see if it exists in a table for a certain league id. (the league they are joining.)
It doesn't seem like Data Annotations are an ideal solution for anything other then trivial validation. My current solution is to query the db at beginning of post action method, and add the error to the ModelState manually. (yes, terrible)
Any ideas?
I think it may help to put some thought into the difference between Input Validation and Business Logic. Ayende has some thoughts on this here
Rules like 'When they submit the form I need to make sure that the current user doesn't already have a team in the league' sounds like Business Logic, not Input Validation, and you may want to handle it in a different way. This logic could, for instance, go into a 'CanSave' method on a 'User' class or something similar - the key thing is to separate this from Input Validation if you can.
Although I agree with Steve, DataAnnotations has a base ValidationAttribute in which you can implement anything you want. To say it can only do trivial things is not accurate in fact with this extensibility point you can do almost anything you want.
Now there are some issues with service location being all over the place by having database logic inside your code but there are options to clean this up. The DataAnnotations are applied via a ModelValidatorProvider class that can easily be configured just like you would do ControllerFactories or ViewEngines.
ModelValidatorProviders.Providers.Add(new YourCustomProvider());
Now what you can do in this case is have your validator provider provide the persistence layer code into your attribute. So the code stays clean yet you can use custom data annotation attributes that touch the db.
Related
I have a separate .dll with our database model and partial classes etc in using FluentValidation which works fine (it's to be used by both by desktop barcoding terminals and also by our website).
For the desktop apps I can read and display all errors like below
public override int SaveChanges()
{
var errors = this.GetValidationErrors();
if (errors.Any())
{
//handle validation errors
return 0;
}
else
{
return base.SaveChanges();
}
}
For the MVC site I can set up validators on individual models or create data annotations and get those working okay (which is not what I want). The thing I can't get my head around is how I can force my models to map to my entities in a way that I can display the fluent validation messages in the views. I don't want to have two separate sets of logic to be maintained and the barcoding apps and website must use the same.
Do I have to map my entities directly to the views? which i've been led to believe is a bad thing and not very flexible. Or is there a way of stating that a field in a model maps back to an attribute of one of my entities? perhaps an annotation of some description.
EDIT:
Just some clarification for the types of validation i'll need.
most front end input type validation will still stay in the viewModels (required/length/password matches etc - basically all the stuff I can use for client side validation as well). But there are all the business logic validations that I don't want there. Things like email addresses must be validated before other options can be set, account numbers must be of a particular format based on name (stuff I can't do with a regex). This particular date is not a valid delivery date etc.
I guess one thing I could do is add these to the ValidationSummary somehow and display them separate from the individual fields.
I think you're just looking at the situation wrong. What MVC is all about is a separation of concerns. There's things the database needs to know about that your views could care less, and vice versa. That's why the recommended practice is to use view model with your views and not the entity itself.
Validation is much the same. Something like the fact that a password confirmation needs to match the password the user entered does not concern the database at all. Or more appropriately, something like a validation on minimum amount of characters in the password does not concern the database, either; it will only ever receive a salted and hashed version of the password. Therefore it would be wrong to put this kind of validation on your entity. It belongs on the view model.
When I first started out using MVC, I used to add all the validation logic to my entity class and then go and repeat that same validation on my view model. Over time, I started to realize that very little of the validation actually needs to be on both. In fact, the largest majority of validation will should just go on your view model. It acts as a gatekeeper of sorts; if the data is good enough to get through your view model, it's good enough for your database. The types of validation that make sense on your entity is things like Required, but even that is really only necessary on a nullable field that must have a value by the time it gets to your database. Things like DateTimes are non-nullable by default, and EF is smart enough to make them non-nullable on the tables it creates by default. MaxLength is at times worthwhile if there should be a hard limit on the length of a text field in your database, but more often than not, nvarchars work just fine.
Anyways the point is that if you actually sit down and start evaluating the validation on your entity, you'll likely see that most of it is business logic that only applies to how your application works and not to how the data is represented at the database level. That's the key takeaway: on your entity, you only need the validation that's necessary for the database. And that's generally pretty thin.
Just an update. to get the two tier validation that i needed i had to mark all my entity model classes as IValidatable. Then i overrode the validate method for each class and invoked my fluent validation validator method there, passing back the errors needed. for the modelstate.addmodelerror i set the key as the field name and it mapped back okay. bit more code but it works. if i find a better way to do this ill update.
Background
I have a payment page where the user can select from a list of existing payment methods, or specify a new one. The dropdown presents options such as:
Visa - ******1234 (Saved)
Mastercard - ******9876 (Saved)
[New Credit Card ...]
[New Electronic Check ...]
Using jQuery, I toggle hidden DIVs that contain either an informational table (in the case of options 1 or 2 for saved payment methods) or a form (in the case of the [new] options).
I am using a strongly typed class as my view model which contains (among simple types) a CreditCard class and a Check class. Each of these classes uses data annotation validators, as they are used in other parts of the site.
Problem
The problem comes in when the user submits the form. I would like to use model binding to handle the mapping of POST values, but I need the binding and/or validation to fire depending on which option the user selected. For example, if the user selects option 1 or 2 from the list above, I don't want the model validation (or maybe even the binding itself) to fire for the CreditCard or Check objects.
I have researched the possibilities of creating a custom model binder using IModelBinder as well as extending the DefaultModelBinder and just overriding some of the methods. However, I am unsure as to which method is better, and, if extending DefaultModelBinder, which would be the appropriate method to override.
The logic would be fairly simple:
If the user selected one of the existing payment methods, no validation on the CreditCard or Check are required.
If the user selected one of the options to create a new payment method, then only the selected method (CreditCard or Check) needs to be bound and validated
It feels as if extending the DefaultModelBinder is the way to go, as I would like most of the heavy lifting to be done by the framework without the need to create a custom binder from scratch. However, when looking at the available methods to override, it's not clear which is the best one(s):
BindProperty - The problem here is that I basically need to look at one of the properties to determine what other properties should be bound. I don't think I can control the order in which the incoming properties are bound, and I wouldn't want to rely on the order they are set in the HTML form.
OnModelUpdated - By this point, it's too late. The binding validation from the data annotations has been triggered and the ModelState has been updated. I would have to loop through the ModelState and remove the errors that are not relevant.
OnPropertyValidating - At first I thought this is where I should look, but even returning TRUE for all properties (as a test) causes the ModelState to contain binding errors.
I have come across this scenario in other aspects of the application and decided to split up functionality into separate controller/actions to simplify the process. However, I would like to have a better understanding of how to approach more complex UI problems, particularly related to the MVC model binding features.
Any help on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
All the possible values are stored in a dropdown list. Using jQuery, I toggle the form (for a new payment method) and the display (for an existing method)
I have decided to try to circumvent model binding altogether and use FormCollection, IValueProvider, and TryUpdateModel inside my controller action.
Your issue sounds way to specialized to be placed in the default ModelBinder.
The ModelBinder is this seductress that lures you in on the pretense that she can solve all of your problems. But then you start merging ModelState's together and going off to do crazy things with nested objects lists and before you know it she slaps you with divorce papers and takes everything but your bones.
MVC 3 holds some promise to provide a more extensible ModelBinder but from my own personal experience unless its super simple what you need to change, such as empty texboxes becoming "" instead of null, than stay clear away from your own implementation.
The alternative approach is to use the existing ModelBinder functionality piecemeal and using things like Ignore method parameters to clean things up:
if( myModel.IsNewPayment )
UpdateModel( myModel.Payment, "exclude everything else" );
A lot of what your proposing to stuff into the model binder is really business logic too that should be in another layer. I've done some crazy things with my own ModelBinder and now regret every line of code I've written in there. Maybe its just me but your really bending the rules and completely trashing the "single responsibility principal" by putting business and payment logic in there.
If you were to code a function/method that would, for entered string or slug (for instance in Create or Edit view), go into datastore and check whether that string or slug exists and in this case create a link to it, where would you put it?
For instance, we have a "Link" textbox on our Create or Edit form. I have a jQuery autocomplete wired to it, which retrieves existing Page slugs. If a user decides to select one of them, we would create a link that points to the content within our site, based on the Page controller, like this:
~/Page/Display/some-slug
or just
~/Page/some-slug
If, however, user decides not to select anything and inputs for instance www.google.com, we catch it in our ParseUrl(), format it with http://... etc. and store it like that.
The code for the function is no problem and I have it working currently in a Model Binder. However, due to strange, confusing and opposing practices with DI in Model Binders I would like to move it somewhere else. Another reason would be to remove dataccess code from Model Binders.
The question is - where to move such funcionality? If possible, I would like to avoid repeating ParseUrl() calls across various controller actions.
1) Implement it so it makes sense to you and your team.
-or-
2) Leave it where it is because its already working.
Is moving it going to make your app better, will your customers be happier, deadlines met faster?
There is no magic Asp.net MVC thunder-god that descends from the heavens to smite you if you dare use the wrong extensibility point. Nobody is going to call you an idiot. People may disagree, but that happens. Its ok to "go for it" and get things done before being architecturally pure.
"However, due to strange, confusing and opposing practices with DI in Model Binders"
What does that even mean?
I am in the way building some MVC Application and I really love the Data Annotations support in MVC. The build in support is good enough to enforce simple validation checkup. I wonder, how to implement unique-field validation using custom data-annotation ? For example, I have a view model that need the user to register a new login name, is there way to check (using Model.IsValid) whether the name is not existed before calling the db submit?
You could write your own validator attribute to check the database I guess or you could load all the data in and checkagainst that.
I'd be more inclined to simply attempt to write to the database and have the unique constraint in the table. If you get back an error indicating that there is a duplicate insert error then you simply show that to the user.
I wouldn't be looking to read ahead and check myself.
EDIT
I guess you could also do the check in the code that does the insert. You could do a read and if none is found then insert.
If you do find a duplicate, you could add to the models validation violation rules and return it so that the error would appear in the validation summary on the page.
Create your own Attribute which inherits from ValidationAttribute(the base for all the validation attributes in the DataAnnotations namespace). Override the IsValid method with a check for user id uniqueness.
When I started using xVal for client-side validation, I was only implementing action methods which used domain model objects as a viewmodel or embedded instances of those objects in the viewmodel.
This approach works fine most of the time, but there are cases when the view needs to display and post back only a subset of the model's properties (for example when the user wants to update his password, but not the rest of his profile data).
One (ugly) workaround is to have a hidden input field on the form for each property that is not otherwise present on the form.
Apparently the best practice here is to create a custom viewmodel which only contains properties relevant to the view and populate the viewmodel via Automapper. It's much cleaner since I am only transferring the data relevant to the view, but it's far from perfect since I have to repeat the same validation attributes that are already present on the domain model object.
Ideally I'd like to specify the Domain Model object as a meta class via a MetaData attribute (this is also often referred to as "buddy class"), but that doesn't work since xVal throws when the metadata class has properties that are not present on the viewmodel.
Is there any elegant workaround to this? I've been considering hacking the xVal sourcecode, but perhaps there is some other way I have overlooked so far.
Thanks,
Adrian
Edit: With the arrival of ASP.NET MVC 2, this is not only a problem related to validation attributes anymore, but it also applies to editor and display attributes.
This is the quintessential reason why your input screens should not be tightly coupled to your model. This question actually pops up here on the MVC tag about 3-4 times a month. I'd dupe if I could find the previous question and some of the comment discussion here is interesting. ;)
The issue your having is you're trying to force two different validation contexts of a model into a single model which fails under a large amount of scenarios. The best example is signing up a new user and then having an admin edit a user field later. You need to validate a password on a user object during registration but you won't show the password field to the admin editing the user details.
The choices for getting around these are all sub-optimal. I've worked on this problem for 3 projects now and implementing the following solutions has never been clean and usually frustrating. I'm going to try and be practical and forget all the DDD/db/model/hotnessofthemonth discussions everybody else is having.
1) Multiple View Models
Having viewmodels that are almost the same violates the DRY principal but I feel the costs of this approach are really low. Usually violating DRY amps up maintenance costs but IMHO the costs for this are the lowest and don't amount to much. Hypothetically speaking you don't change how max number characters the LastName field can have very often.
2) Dynamic Metadata
There are hooks in MVC 2 for providing your own metadata for a model. With this approach you could have whatever your using to provide metadata exclude certain fields based on the current HTTPRequest and therefore Action and Controller. I've used this technique to build a database driven permissions system which goes to the DB and tells the a subclass of the DataAnnotationsMetadataProvider to exclude properties based values stored in the database.
This technique is working great atm but the only problem is validating with UpdateModel(). To solve this problem we created a SmartUpdateModel() method which also goes to the database and automatically generates the exclude string[] array so that any non-permissisable fields aren't validated. We of course cached this for performance reasons so its not bad.
Just want to reiterate that we used [ValidationAttributes] on our models and then superceeded them with new rules on runtime. The end result was that the [Required] User.LastName field wasn't validated if the user didn't have permission to access it.
3) Crazy Interface Dynamic Proxy Thing
The last technique I tried to was to use interfaces for ViewModels. The end result was I had a User object that inherited from interfaces like IAdminEdit and IUserRegistration. IAdminEdit and IUserRegistration would both contain DataAnnotation attributes that performed all the context specific validation like a Password property with the interfaces.
This required some hackery and was more an academic exercise than anything else. The problem with 2 and 3 is that UpdateModel and the DataAnnotationsAttribute provider needed to be customized to be made aware of this technique.
My biggest stumbling block was I didn't ever want to send the whole user object to the view so I ended up using dynamic proxies to create runtime instances of IAdminEdit
Now I understand this is a very xVal specific question but all of the roads to dynamic validation like this lead to customization of the internal MVC Metadata providers. Since all the metadata stuff is new nothing is that clean or simple to do at this point. The work you'd have to do to customize MVC's validation behavior isn't hard but requires some in depth knowledge of how all of the internals work.
We moved our validation attributes to the ViewModel layer. In our case, this provided a cleaner separation of concerns anyway, as we were then able to design our domain model such that it couldn't get into an invalid state in the first place. For example, Date might be required on a BillingTransaction object. So we don't want to make it Nullable. But on our ViewModel, we might need to expose Nullable such that we can catch the situation where the user didn't enter a value.
In other cases, you might have validation that is specific per page/form, and you'll want to validate based on the command the user is trying to perform, rather than set a bunch of stuff and ask the domain model, "are you valid for trying to do XYZ", where in doing "ABC" those values are valid.
If ViewModels are hypothetically being forced upon you, then I recommend that they only enforce domain-agnostic requirements. This includes things like "username is required" and "email is formatted properly".
If you duplicate validation from the domain models in the view models, then you have tightly coupled the domain to the UI. When the domain validation changes ("can only apply 2 coupon per week" becomes "can only apply 1 coupon per week"), the UI must be updated. Generally speaking, this would be awful, and detrimental to agility.
If you move the validation from the domain models to the UI, you've essentially gutted your domain and placed the responsibility of validation on the UI. A second UI would have to duplicate all the validation, and you have coupled two separate UI's together. Now if the customer wants a special interface to administrate the inventory from their iPhone, the iPhone project needs to replicate all the validation that is also found in the website UI.
This would be even more awful than validation duplication described above.
Unless you can predict the future and can rule out these possibilities, only validate domain-agnostic requirements.
I don't know how this will play for client-side validation, but if partial validation is your issue you can modify the DataAnnotationsValidationRunner discussed here to take in an IEnumerable<string> list of property names, as follows:
public static class DataAnnotationsValidationRunner
{
public static IEnumerable<ErrorInfo> GetErrors(object instance, IEnumerable<string> fieldsToValidate)
{
return from prop in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(instance).Cast<PropertyDescriptor>().Where(p => fieldsToValidate.Contains(p.Name))
from attribute in prop.Attributes.OfType<ValidationAttribute>()
where !attribute.IsValid(prop.GetValue(instance))
select new ErrorInfo(prop.Name, attribute.FormatErrorMessage(string.Empty), instance);
}
}
I'm gonna risk the downvotes and state that there is no benefit to ViewModels (in ASP.NET MVC), especially considering the overhead of creating and maintaining them. If the idea is to decouple from the domain, that is indefensible. A UI decoupled from a domain is not a UI for that domain. The UI must depend on the domain, so you're either going to have your Views/Actions coupled to the domain model, or your ViewModel management logic coupled to the domain model. The architecture argument is thus moot.
If the idea is to prevent users from hacking malicious HTTP POSTs that take advantage of ASP.NET MVC's model binding to mutate fields they shouldn't be allowed to change, then A) the domain should enforce this requirement, and B) the actions should provide whitelists of updateable properties to the model binder.
Unless you're domain is exposing something crazy like a live, in-memory object graph instead of entity copies, ViewModels are wasted effort. So to answer your question, keep domain validation in the domain model.