I have settled on trying to use ASP.NET MVC but the first part I want to replace is the Model. I am using LLBL Pro for the model.
I have a table called "Groups" that is a simple look up table. I want to take thhe results of the table and populate a list in MVC. Something that should be very simple... or so I thought.... I've tried all kinds of things as I was getting errors like:
The model item passed into the dictionary is of type 'System.Collections.Generic.List1[glossary.EntityClasses.GroupEntity]', but this dictionary requires a model item of type 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable1[glossary.CollectionClasses.GroupCollection]'.
private GroupCollection gc = new GroupCollection();
public ActionResult Index()
{
gc.GetMulti(null);
return View( gc.?????? );
}
This is all I am trying to do, I've tried lots of variations, but my goal is simply to take the data and display it.
Not sure if this would work, but you could try wrapping the EntityCollection into a ViewModel class and passing it to the View like so:
public class GroupsViewModel()
{
public GroupCollection Groups { get; set; }
// other items in your view model could go here
}
then convert your controller method to
public ActionResult Index()
{
GroupCollection gc = new GroupCollection();
gc.GetMulti(null);
GroupsViewModel vm = new GroupsViewModel();
vm.Groups = gc;
return View(vm);
}
I like this approach because each ViewModel is an object in-and-of itself.
You can use the AsEnumerable extension where your ????? are or change the type of your ViewUserControl(in the markup) to be of type System.Collections.Generic.List. Basically what you need to correct is the mismatch between the type of the View and the Model being passed in.
I'm not sure about your exact error, but I'd venture a guess that one of two things are happenging:
You are making some sort of invalid / illegal call on your LLBLGen object. If this is the case make sure you are setting it up right / calling right method / property etc.
The model you are passing to the veiw is too hairy for it to deal with. In this case, and in general, you should create a light 'View Model' class with just the data you want displayed and populate it from your LLBLGen object first then pass it to the view, which will be able to easily handle your view model class.
Here are some references:
http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2009/04/13/asp.net-mvc-tip-50-ndash-create-view-models.aspx
http://nerddinnerbook.s3.amazonaws.com/Part6.htm
http://www.codinginstinct.com/2008/10/view-model-inheritance.html
Stemming off what Yuriy said, it looks like your view is strongly typed to a "collection" of a collection of your groupentity, and you are trying to pass just the collection of your groupentities. Make sure your "collection" type (IEnumerable, IList, etc) matches what type of collection you are sending in your controller, along with the type of the actual object in the collection.
View:
System.Collections.Generic.List1[glossary.EntityClasses.GroupEntity]
Controller:
System.Collections.Generic.List1[glossary.EntityClasses.GroupEntity]
Just a thought
Related
I'm trying to put two partialviews together but I keep getting errors.
I've got a Subject-model and a Category-model, and I've made partial views which seem to work perfectly, but when I put them together in a single view this pops up:
Error 1 'Myproject.Models.Subject' is a 'type', which is not valid in the given context
this is the only code in my view:
#{Html.RenderPartial("_CategoryPartial", Myproject.Models.Category);}
#{Html.RenderPartial("_SubjectPartial", Myproject.Models.Subject);}
I guess I will have to create a seperate viewmodel if all else fails, but I thought on checking on here first
The problem is that you are passing in the type of Model rather than an object.
void HtmlHelper.RenderPartial(string partialViewName, object model)
You could do this if you changed your code to;
#{Html.RenderPartial("_CategoryPartial", new Myproject.Models.Category());}
#{Html.RenderPartial("_SubjectPartial", new Myproject.Models.Subject());}
Then you would need to populate the properties within each object.
An alternative is to change your code to call a class which returns the populated objects, e.g.
#{Html.RenderPartial("_CategoryPartial", Myproject.Models.CategoryRepository.GetCategory(id));}
#{Html.RenderPartial("_SubjectPartial", Myproject.Models.SubjectRepository.Get(id));}
You need to be passing instances of those models to the partials, whereas you are just specifying the types, hence the error.
So yes, for this view, I would create a view model, something like:
public class ExampleViewModel
{
public Category Category {get;set;}
public Subject Subject {get;set;}
}
and then do:
#{Html.RenderPartial("_CategoryPartial", Model.Category);}
#{Html.RenderPartial("_SubjectPartial", Model.Subject);}
I have the following model:-
[MetadataType(typeof(TMSServer_Validation))]
[Bind(Exclude = "TMSRack,ServerModel")]
public partial class TMSServer
{
}
and I have the following drop down inside my view:-
#Html.DropDownListFor(model =>model.Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID, ((IEnumerable<TMS.Models.DataCenter>)ViewBag.DataCenters).Select(option => new SelectListItem {
Text = (option == null ? "None" : option.Name),
Value = option.ID.ToString(),
Selected = (Model.Server.TMSRack != null) && (option.ID == Model.Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID)
}), "Choose...")
Then on my controller class I have the following :-
ViewBag.Racks = repository.getrelatedracks(Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID);
But since I have excluded the TMSRack navigation property (mainly to avoid over-posting attacks), so the Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID will always be null. And to get its value I wrote the following:-
ViewBag.Racks = repository.getrelatedracks(Int32.Parse( Request.Form["Server.TMSRack.DataCenterID"]));
But I know that using Request.Form is not the right approach to follow, so my question is there a way to get the excluded property using more reliable way ?
Thanks
My answer is going to assume TMSServer is a domain model.
With that in mind, this is the perfect example of when to use a view model. By using a view model instead, you have complete control over how the properties are mapped from the view model to the domain model. Something like:
public class RackViewModel
{
public int DataCenterID
// other Rack properties
}
Then either send a list of RackViewModel to your view, or create a view model that encompasses all of that, too:
public class ContainerViewModel
{
public List<RackViewModel> Racks { get; set; }
// other view-specific properties
}
Now, when you POST the data back, not only do you have complete control over what properties you want to bind to your view models, you also have complete control over the mapping that takes place from converting your view models to domain models.
The bottom-line is this: if your view accepts a view model that only allows the user to POST the data they should be allowed to POST, over-posting doesn't even exist. Well-designed view models, or even making the distinction between a view model and an input model (i.e. a separate model that represents the data you want to bind back to in your action), eliminates over-posting entirely.
Over-posting only exists because you're not restricting the model binding process enough. If you ask it to bind to a class that has 10 properties in it when you only need 3 you're allowing the user to potentially stuff data into those other 7 properties.
This is one reason why view models are so popular. They allow you to narrow the scope of your view, whilst also narrowing the scope of the model binder. That leaves you free to properly manage the process of mapping from your view model to your domain model, without introducing a vulnerability.
Update
As you don't want to go the view model approach, your idea will work but you can do it slightly differently. Something along the lines of:
public ActionResult SomeAction(SomeModel model, TMSRack rack)
Where:
SomeModel is the type of model you're decorating with Bind(Exclude...) (it's not obvious what type that is from your question.
TMSRack is the type I assume you want to bind to.
As TMSRack is defined in your main model anyway, as long as you're using the Html.* helpers, it will have the correct names generated for it on the form in order to bind straight back to it as a separate parameter on your action. Then you can do whatever you want with it, without resorting to Request.Form.
I have two models: Reptile and Species. A Reptile has a Species, stored as an ID in the database:
How should I set up the details controller action/view for Reptile so that it displays the Title property of the Species instead of the ID that the Reptile uses?
My initial thought was just to grab the data in the controller and pass it in the ViewBag, but this seems inappropriate, and overly complex when it's time to setup the list action.
What's the proper way to do this?
It seems like I need to make a view model, but what confuses me is how to properly design it so that there aren't too many database calls.
Here is my initial attempt at a ViewModel:
public class ReptileDetailsModel
{
[Required]
public String Species { get; set; }
//etc...
public ReptileDetailsModel(Reptile reptile)
{
this.Species = reptile.Species.Title;
// etc...
}
}
Another way to achieve the same thing in more generic way is to use AutoMapper
Few advantages I can think of:
Automatically map exact properties (you only need specify anything that is exception to the rule)
Centralized in one class / method, whatever
Ability to ignore, map to another classes properties, even custom logic
Non intrusive, it is up to you how / when you want to use it.
In your particular instance I would create a mapper something like
Mapper.CreateMap<Reptile, ReptileDetailsModel>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Species,
options => options.MapFrom(source => source.Species.Title));
This mapper info need to be registered somewhere. In MVC projects I have been involved, I would register a mapper into global.asax.
Then in your controller, you would want to invoke the mapper to map your reptile instance to your model
ReptileDetailsModel model = Mapper.Map<ReptileDetailsModel>(reptile);
There are many ways to use the AutoMapper within MVC, but this is probably a start.
I didn't realize it at the time, but I was using:
public ActionResult Index()
{
using (var db = new ModelsContainer())
{
return View(db.Reptiles.ToList());
}
}
This was causing the database (and thus model property) to expire before the view was rendered, causing this error (adding for search engines):
The ObjectContext instance has been disposed and can no longer be used for operations that require a connection.
Set the Species class as a model for your strongly typed Reptile View. Then display the Title property of it. Your action method should look like this:
public ActionResult Reptile(Reptile rep)
{
return View(db.Species.Where(x=>x.ID == rep.SpeciesID).Single());
}
this way you would only need to call database once in order to generate the view.
I have a view model like this:
public class EditVM
{
public Media.Domain.Entities.Movie Movie { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Genre> Genres { get; set; }
}
Movie is the real entity I wish to edit. Genres is simply present to populate a drop down. I would prefer that when I call:
#Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Movie.Title)
inside my strongly typed view that the input control have a name = "Title" instead of "Movie.Title"
I do not wish to split my view into partial views or lose my strongly typed view by using ViewData or the like.
Is there a way to express to the View that I do not wish to have the Movie. prefix? I noticed that you can set:
ViewData.TemplateInfo.HtmlFieldPrefix = "x";
in the controller, but unfortunately it seems only to allow adding an additional prefix. Setting it to "" does nothing.
Is there any work around for this? Or am I stuck with the unfortunate prefix that isn't really necessary in this case if I wish to keep strongly typed views and lambdas?
Thanks for any help.
Update:
Here's the controller actions to maybe make things a bit clearer.
public ActionResult Edit(int? id)
{
var vm = new EditVM
{
Movie = id.HasValue ? _movieSvc.Find(id.Value) : new Movie(),
Genres = AppData.ListGenres()
};
return View(vm);
}
[HttpPost]
public void Edit([Bind(Prefix = "Movie")]Movie m)
{
_movieSvc.AddOrUpdateMovie(m); //Exceptions handled elsewhere
}
No, in order to do what you want you would have to rewrite the Html helpers, and then you would have to write your own model binder. Seems like a lot of work for minimal gain.
The only choice is a Partial view in which you pass the Movie object as the model. However, this would require you to write your own model binder to have it be recognized.
The reason you have to do m.Movie.Title is so that the ID has the correct name, so the model binder can recognize it as a member of your model.
Based on your update:
Your options are:
Use non-strongly typed helpers.
Use a partial view.
Rewrite the stronly typed helpers
Don't use the helpers at all, and write the values to the HTML
Personally, i'd just use 1 or 2, probably 2.
EDIT:
Based on your update above. Change your code to this (note, Genres does not get posted back to the server, so m.Genres will just be null on postback):
[HttpPost]
public void Edit(EditVM m)
{
_movieSvc.AddOrUpdateMovie(m.Movie); //Exceptions handled elsewhere
}
EDIT:
I did just think of an alternative to this. You could simply do this:
#{ var Movie = Model.Movie; }
#Html.TextBoxFor(m => Movie.Title)
However, if there was a validation error, you would have to recreate your EditVM.
I have a view model like this
I think that you might have some misunderstanding about what a view model is. A view model shouldn't contain any reference to your domain models which is what those Movie and Genre classes seem to be. I mean creating a new class that you suffix with VM and in which you stuff all your domain models as properties is not really a view model. A view model is a class that is specifically designed to meet the requirements of your view.
A much more correct view model would looks like this:
public class EditVM
{
public string MovieTitle { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<GenreViewModel> Genres { get; set; }
}
and in your view you would have:
#Html.EditorFor(x => x.MovieTitle)
#Html.EditorFor(x => x.Genres)
Another option is to either use the TextBox(string name, object value) overload instead of the TextBoxFor:
#Html.TextBox("Title", Model.Movie.Title)
You could also specify the input tag HTML instead of using a helper.
Another option is to take EditVM as your postback parameter. This is what I would do. My post action parameter is always the same type of the .cshtml model. Yes there will be properties like lists that are null, but you just ignore those. It also allows you to gracefully handle post errors as well because if there is an error you'll need to return an instance of that view model anyhow, and have the values they submitted included. I usually have private methods or DB layer that handles retrieving the various lists that go into the ViewModel, since those will be empty on postback and will need to be repopulated, while not touching the properties that were in the post.
With your post method as it is now, if you need to return the same view, you've gotta create a new EditVM and then copy any posted values into it, and still populate the lists. With my method, you eliminate one of those mapping steps. If you are posting more than one thing, are you going to have umpteen different parameters on your post action? Just let them all come naturally into a single parameter typed to the EditVM of the View. While maybe having those null properties in the VM during the postback feels icky, you get a nice predictable consistency between View and postback IMO. You don't have to spend alot of time thinking about what combination of parameters on your post method will get you all the pieces of data from the form.
I would like bind an array data to view in ASP.NET MVC, how can I do that?
sorry for not clear about my question.
Right now, I creat a custom object(not array), I tried to pass it to View, but the error shows
"The model item passed into the dictionary is of type 'ContactView' but this dictionary requires a model item of type 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable"
You can use the ViewData[], but the best way would be to actually create a view class and return that.
So let's say the view you want to send the data is called Contacts. Create a new View class and return that. so instead of this:
public ActionResult Contacts(){
ViewData["contacts"] = arrayOfContacts[];
...
return View();
}
You can get strongly-typed views by doing this:
public class ContactsView(){
Object[] ContactsList {get;set;}
}
public ActionResult Contacts(){
...
return View(new ContactsView(){
ContactsList = arrayOfContacts[];
});
}
Then in the actual view, you can have it be strongly typed by accepting objects of type ContactsView. That way in the actual View, have it inherit like so:
... Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<ContactsView>" ...
Which allows you to call your array like...
Model.ContactsList
as opposed to this:
object[] arrayOfItems = (Object[])ViewData["theContactsList"];
In which case you'd probably want to check if it's not null, etc. The benefit of this is that if you refactor it's much easier. Not to mention the ease and type security of use of strongly typed objects.
Put it in the ViewData, and use for..each to loop through it?
Look at this link: http://nerddinnerbook.s3.amazonaws.com/Part6.htm
Basically you could load the array into a viewdata object, and use that as you like.