In our standard web forms ASP.NET solutions we typically have a range of user controls within the master page and determine whether they display or not within their code behind. What is the best approach within ASP.NET MVC to achieve the same goal?
You could obviously put if statements within the master page or the partial view but that strikes me as messy and breaks the principle of keeping business logic out of the view. It also requires either putting the necessary information into all view models, or inheriting from a base controller which seems like a lot of messing about for something so simple.
I was thinking about using RenderAction and returning a totally blank view to prevent any output - is that a good pattern?
breaks the principle of keeping business logic out of the view
It is not business logic. It is presentation logic when you determine whether to display something or not. It is okay to have it there.
You can make decision whether to display something or not and set up a few flags in the model (you can make BaseModel or MasterModel for example). Then your master views, partial views themselves or HTML helpers will perform conditional rendering based on these flags.
As to the clean separation of concerns, yes, the WebForms could seemingly do it but it was rather a huge abstraction of the underlying mechanisms. Often it results in having business logic in the code-behind, meaning, in the presentation layer where business logic belongs no more than it belongs to the views.
You could avoid the messy "If" statements in view by creating a Html extension method as mentioned in my recent post http://www.rajeeshcv.com/2010/01/asp-net-mvc-conditional-rendering-partial-views/
Thanks,
Rajeesh
Related
I'm new to developing web apps using ASP.NET MVC. In fact, I'm rather new to developing web apps, regardless of technology.
Currently, I'm working on a project just to get to know the ASP.NET MVC framework better. When reading on SO and elsewhere on the internet, the consensus seems to be that the views should never deal directly with the business objects (i.e. objects implementing business logic and containing associated attributes). Instead, view models should be used. However, this introduces a couple of issues:
Where do I put my validation code?
I need to add code to map between business objects and view models.
In fact, it seems rather cumbersome and I haven't really seen anyone explaining properly why it's a bad idea passing business objects to the views. Could someone please try to explain this (or point to a good explanation)?
Just a clarification; I'm not looking for examples on how to handle the two issues with view models above but simply an explanation on why I should use view models at all.
Where do I put my validation code?
On the view models you should validate everything that's specific to the application like for example the date should be in en-US format culture, ....
I need to add code to map between business objects and view models.
That's why there are tools such as AutoMapper.
Different problems arise when you use directly your domain models in the views:
The views have specific requirements for displaying the data (localization/globalization) so you either end up with spaghetti code in your views or you put this code on your models so that they become less reusable in other applications because you have polluted them with specific presentation stuff
You have different validation requirements based on the view. Let's take for example the case of Add and Update views. In the Add view the Id property won't be needed and it won't be required because you will be inserting a new item. In the Update view the Id property would be required because you would be updating an existing item. It would be difficult to handle those specific validation rules without view models.
The models might contain properties such as IsAdmin and then I am leaving to your imagination the implication of a controller action with the following signature:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult CreateUser(BusinessObjectUser user) { ... }
assuming that you have hidden this property from the underlying form by not including it.
The business models don't change often whereas the UI could change more often. What if your customer asks you to split your screen in two? The way you present the information changes and the way it is formatted also change. If you use your models directly into the views the spaghetiness of your views becomes worse and worse with every change.
About 60% of the question I am answering on StackOverflow in the asp.net-mvc tag wouldn't have been asked if the OP have used a view model.
Three reasons to why you should use View Models:
Reason 1: Remove logic from your Views
Reason two: Security
Reason three: Loose coupling
Below link may useful:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/223547/Three-reasons-to-why-you-should-use-view-models
First off, allowing the Views to have direct access to the Business Objects in ASP.NET MVC introduces some extra security concerns. ASP.NET MVC does a lot of Model binding for you when a user posts a value back to your controller. This can open you up to various kinds of attacks. By introducing a View Model in between, you can be sure that only the fields you are interesting are bound (because the ViewModel will only contain the fields you care about).
As for the other questions:
Where do I put my validation code?
I use DataAnnotations on my ViewModels directly. That allows me to use the Model validation architecture built in to ASP.NET MVC. If there's any validation beyond that I handle it in my controller.
I need to add code to map between
business objects and view models.
True. But using something like AutoMapper can greatly reduce the amount of boilerplate code that you have to write by hand.
MVC is easy to understand and has very little overhead. But those that have used the Model-View-Controller pattern for some time know that it isn't perfect. Not even close. The Model-View-ViewModel pattern offers an interesting alternative.
It is important to understand that the Model-View-ViewModel pattern extends the Model-View-Controller pattern. It isn't a dramatic paradigm shift if you are used to MVC. Even though the advantages of MVVM are subtle, they are profound.
What are some of the advantages MVVM has over MVC?
Better Separation of Concerns
Improved Testability
Transparent Communication
I am currently considering the best way of building a relatively complex page in asp.net mvc. The page (and pages like it) will contain numerous 'controls' such as a shopping basket, recent news widget, login controls and more. In other words, it will be very component based.
My question is, what is the best way of building something like this in asp.net MVC? In regular webforms the answer would be simple thanks to user controls and the fact they can be nicely self contained. In MVC, I understand that in theory I should probably build a viewmodel that includes all the data needed for all my widgets and then render partial views in whatever page I'm building.
Could an alternative approach be to use javascript to load widgets 'dynamically' (think jQuery load) by simply calling into controllers that render partial views. That way I could have a basket controller, which when called renders out a basket. Of course, this relies on javascript....
Whats the best practise for situations like this?
Thanks
You could of course use JavaScript to populate the page sections but then this content will not be accessible to search engines (but that probably does not concern you).
What you need to understand that there is currently no way to make these partial views perform independently. Like talking to their own controller and posting data while having the rest of the stay unchanged (like it could have been done with WebForms and user controls). If you think postbacks and control state these things do not exist any longer. Your "control" makes a post, the controller has to process the request and then recreate the complete view along with all element values, states and other "user controls".
Unless you do it asynchronously with JavaScript of course. But then it's not gonna be an accessible page any more.
You can try SubControllers from MvcContrib or Steve Sanderson`s "Partial Request" approach.
But i warn you - communication between (partial requests, i haven't tried subcontrollers myself) them might get tricky and lead to mega failure. Use them only if you are completely sure that they are completely independent.
Anyway - that's a bad idea and should be avoided through controller/viewmodel inheritance or something....
My understanding of MVC is not yet up with WebForms, however is the generally accepted approach for stuff like this to simply throw these things in the ViewBag rather than include them in the ViewModel?
You could send down a main view model with some simple checks on it. Then render the appropriate Action if required. Then each partial could use it's own viewmodel and you wouldn't need to send everything down initially on the same viewmodel.
Razor:
#if (model.ShowShoppingCart)
{
#Html.Action("Index","ShoppingCart")
}
#if (model.blah)
{
#Html.Action("Index","blah")
}
I recently asked a question about using the Page.User or HttpContext.Current.User in the View. It was recommended I pass the user info through the Controller instead? I've seen this in other posted answer as well.
Why is it recommended to pass the user info through the controller and not use Page.User or HttpContext.User?
This would only be pragmatic if your automating your view testing with Selenium or using some other tool to check your HTML output.
If that is the case using HTTPContext inside your controllers is probably a really bad idea because that will only increase the coupling between your controller actions and HTTPContext.
To gain maximum testability you probably want to setup a controller factory that can inject the User bits into your controller when MVC calls it. That way your action methods remain decoupled from HTTPContext and you gain testability.
If your not using a automated view testing tool it doesn't really matter were you call your HttpContext.User information unless your doing a lot of logic in your view. For example if( HttpContext.User.IsAuthenticated ) or something. If that is the case you can just stick it inside a control and use RenderPartial or bake the logic bits into your viewmodels.
A recommended best practice for MVC is to keep your Views as dumb as possible. Yet, I'd advice against getting all dogmatic about MVC and patterns and what not. Because MVC does not have baked in SubController functionality there are many areas were breaking the MVC pattern is not only encouraged but impossible to not break otherwise. ( see MVC 2 RenderAction, RenderPartial, MasterPages with controls )
Controller should provide all necessary data for view. This makes views more testable. If you use only view model inside view, you can easily write test:
Create view model.
Create view object.
Pass model to view.
Render view.
Check if result is correct.
If you used HttpContext.Current inside of view, you would have to set it up first in your tests, which may not be easy and would add additional dependencies.
It loosens the coupling between your controller and the other classes in the application. By using more of a Dependency Injection pattern, you can increase the testability of the controller. This is because in your tests you would not need to simulate concepts like HttpContext but could simply pass in the user object.
What are the basic differences between classic .cs-aspx.cs-aspx (code behind/beside) model and new MVC model?
The basic difference between MVC and classic ASP is that in classic ASP all of the code and mark-up for the application exists in the .asp file. In MVC the .aspx file contains only the code and mark-up for rendering the page. The rest of the application for handling requests, retrieving model data, and enforcing business logic exists in controller and model classes. These classes can be much more easily tested than class ASP code because it is separated from the code that is responsible for rendering the view.
This separation of concerns is the basis of the MVC pattern. According to the pattern, the code is divided into three major components -- Model, View, and Controller. Classes in the model represent the business objects for the application, the persistence framework, and business logic applied to the business objects. Classes in the controller accept incoming requests, use the inputs or query parameters to retrieve the appropriate model data, and generate the necessary data for the view to render. Views (aspx pages) take the data supplied by the controller and generate the mark up.
Webforms (codebehind) is somewhere between classic ASP and the MVC pattern. Webforms does not enforce the separation of concerns in the way that MVC does, but it does allow much more of the code to exist "behind" the actual page. For example, you can separate out the business objects, business logic, and persistence framework (the Model, if you will) from the code that is responsible for generating the view. The difficulty is that the controller actions (input handling and model retrieval) are still linked with the view rendering code. This integration makes it much more difficult to test this code and makes the view/controller code much more dependent on each other than is necessary -- the concerns are "mixed", not "separated." In general, this is evidence of bad design because it make it more difficult to make needed changes in the future.
Hope this helps.
Simply put it this way: MVC is how really web apps should be built. Code-behind (asp.net web forms) is not a good practice. If you are truly a developer you will appreciate that the MVC is the best practice since it really separates logic from data and presentation. Simply MVC is the elegant and right way.
A really simple way to perceive the difference between MVC and ASP (or ASP.NET forms for that matter) is that in MVC the Controller is the handler of the request.
Requests get routed to a controller not a 'page' or a 'form'. The controller will pass along info in the request to the model then make some simple choices as to which view that should be used to present the desired state of the model. Note this is the important point the controller has a choice of what view to use in the response.
MVC breaks the relationship between the requested URL and the UI code needed to render a particular representation of data.
What is the purpose of the code behind view file in ASP.NET MVC besides setting of the generic parameter of ViewPage ?
Here's my list of reasons why code-behind can be useful taken from my own post. I'm sure there are many more.
Databinding legacy ASP.NET controls - if an alternative is not available or a temporary solution is needed.
View logic that requires recursion to create some kind of nested or hierarchical HTML.
View logic that uses temporary variables. I refuse to define local variables in my tag soup! I'd want them as properties on the view class at the very least.
Logic that is specific only to one view or model and does not belong to an HtmlHelper. As a side note I don't think an HtmlHelper should know about any 'Model' classes. Its fine if it knows about the classes defined inside a model (such as IEnumerable, but I dont think for instance you should ever have an HtmlHelper that takes a ProductModel.
HtmlHelper methods end up becoming visible from ALL your views when you type Html+dot and i really want to minimize this list as much as possible.
What if I want to write code that uses HtmlGenericControl and other classes in that namespace to generate my HTML in an object oriented way (or I have existing code that does that that I want to port).
What if I'm planning on using a different view engine in future. I might want to keep some of the logic aside from the tag soup to make it easier to reuse later.
What if I want to be able to rename my Model classes and have it automatically refactor my view without having to go to the view.aspx and change the class name.
What if I'm coordinating with an HTML designer who I don't trust to not mess up the 'tag soup' and want to write anythin beyond very basic looping in the .aspx.cs file.
If you want to sort the data based upon the view's default sort option. I really dont think the controller should be sorting data for you if you have multiple sorting options accessible only from the view.
You actually want to debug the view logic in code that actuallky looks like .cs and not HTML.
You want to write code that may be factored out later and reused elsewhere - you're just not sure yet.
You want to prototype what may become a new HtmlHelper but you haven't yet decided whether its generic enough or not to warrant creating an HtmlHelper. (basically same as previous point)
You want to create a helper method to render a partial view, but need to create a model for it by plucking data out of the main page's view and creating a model for the partial control which is based on the current loop iteration.
You believe that programming complex logic IN A SINGLE FUNCTION is an out of date and unmaintainable practice.
You did it before RC1 and didn't run into any problems !!
Yes! Some views should not need codebehind at all.
Yes! It sucks to get a stupid .designer file created in addition to .cs file.
Yes! Its kind of annoying to get those little + signs next to each view.
BUT - It's really not that hard to NOT put data access logic in the code-behind.
They are most certainly NOT evil.
Ultimately, the question you ask yourself is this:
Does this code A) Process, store, retrieve, perform operations on or analyze the data, or B) Help to display the data?
If the answer is A, it belongs in your controller. If the answer is B, then it belongs in the view.
If B, it ultimately becomes a question of style. If you have some rather long conditional operations for trying to figure out if you display something to the user, then you might hide those conditional operations in the code behind in a Property. Otherwise, it seems like most people drop the code in-line to the front end using the <% %> and <%= %> tags.
Originally, I put all my display logic inside the <% %> tags. But recently I've taken to putting anything messy (such as a lengthy conditional) in my code behind to keep my XHML clean. The trick here is discipline - it's all too tempting to start writing business logic in the code behind, which is exactly what you should not be doing in MVC.
If you're trying to move from traditional ASP.NET to ASP.NET MVC, you might aviod the code behinds until you have a feel for the practices (though it still doesn't stop you from putting business logic inside the <% %>.
There isn't a purpose. Just don't use it except for setting the model
ViewPage<Model>
See this blogpost for more info.
At this Blogpost is a working example of removing the code behind.
The only problem I'm stuck with is that it is not able to set namespaces on the class.
The codebehind provides some of the strong typing as well as the intellisense support that you get in the view. If you don't care about any of these two features, you can remove it.
For example, I typically use the NVelocity ViewEngine because it's clean and pretty straight forward.
This is a great question. Doesn't MVC exist in the ASP.NET environment, without using the specific MVC pattern.
View = aspx
Controller = aspx.cs (codebehind)
Model = POCO (Plain Old C#/VB/.NET objects)
I'm wondering why the added functionality of MVC framework is helpful. I worked significantly with Java nd MVC and Java Struts several years ago (2001), and found the concepts in MVC to be a solution for the Internet Application organization and development problems at that time, but then found that the codebehind simplified the controller concept and was quicker to develop and communicate to others. I am sure others disagree with me, and I am open to other ideas. The biggest value I see to MVC is the front controller pattern for Internet development, single entry source for Internet Application. But, on the other hand, that pattern is fairly simple to implement with current ASP.NET technologies. I have heard others say that Unit Testing is the reasoning. I can understand that also, we used JUnit with our MVC framework in 2001; but I have not been convinced that it simplifies testing to use te MVC framework.
Thanks for reading!