I'm an ASP.NET MVC newbie, but have used many Model-View-Controller frameworks previously.
I recently came across the convention of gathering up the pieces of data that your particular view needs (indeed, it's assigned to the ViewData) into a new class called (NameOfView)ViewModel.
Gathering up this data so that it's associated with the functions provided by the View/Controller interaction strikes me as a helper struct, or even closure mechanism (in the 'encapsulates a collection of variables' sense).
So why is it called 'ViewModel', given that it's neither a View or Model?
Does anyone else find the name confusing?
EDIT: What's wrong with just putting properties onto the View so that the Controller can populate them (as in other MVC frameworks)?
In my reading on this topic I've come across a variety of arguments as to why a developer would or would not want to use a ViewModel. Some even argue that a ViewModel should never expose anything more than strings. At this point I am not that extreme in my thinking. I will agree however, that it is not a good idea to expose Domain/Core Objects to the view. After some first hand experience it feels cleaner to remove this dependency.
While I don't agree with everything below Daniel Root makes a pretty good case for a ViewModel:
Most MVC examples show directly using
a model class, such as a LINQ-to-SQL
or Entity Framework class. The Visual
Studio wiring for MVC even steers you
into this concept with it's default
"Add View" code-generation, which lets
you quickly gen up views based on a
single model class. However, in
real-world-apps you often need more
than just a single table's data to
build out a page. Some examples get
around this by stuffing secondary data
into ViewData, but a better way to do
this is to create a "roll-up" class to
contain properties for everything
your view will need. This has the
added benefits of being more
strongly-typed, supporting
intellisense, being testable, and
defining exactly what a view needs.
Jeff Handley gives a nice description of the ViewModel pattern which he argues can be used in conjunction with MVC.
Edit
I've recently brought my thinking in line with Jimmy Bogard's regarding view models. After a fair amount of pain with each implementation I've tried having one view model per view creates a much cleaner development experience.
The model is a view-agnostic representation of the data. The view model is a view-specific representation of the data: it's the model as it might appear from a given viewpoint.
Consider a model that consists of raw data points; a histogram view might then have a view model consisting of a set of buckets and totals drawn from that data.
Logically, it's a subset or transformation of the model - it could be generated on-demand with a view-specific function and the model as its only input.
Regarding properties on the view vs. a property bag or custom object... I'm sure someone has strong feelings on this, but personally I don't see the big difference. You're producing a view-specific representation of the model and passing it somehow; the exact mechanism doesn't seem all that important.
Re: why can't the controller populate properties on the view?
Because the view doesn't exist at the time the controller action is executing. The idea behind returning an ActionResult from your action is that something later in the processing pipeline will evaluate the result and determine the best course of action (perhaps rendering a view, or maybe selecting a view to match the request (like special views made for mobile devices)).
I did a view posts on selecting the right kind of model object here: Putting the M in MVC Part I, Part II, Part III.
And yes, the term "ViewModel" term is en vogue right now, but it is in the spirit the original MVC adopters had in mind.
This isn't actually an answer but I highly recommend you watch the MVC2 Basics video by Scott Hanselman. It explains everything, and even though I have done ASP.NET MVC before it made a lot of things clear for me.
Its here: http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/matthijs/ASPNET-MVC-2-Basics-Introduction-by-Scott-Hanselman
It's called that because it's a "Model made for a View". I understand why the choice of term is a bit confusing.
It's a helpful approach if you don't want all your data passed to the view as a big hash array. It gives you a strongly-typed class dedicated to the UI, which pollutes neither the core Model or the View. It also allows you to encapsulate UI logic -- views should be kept dumb.
Related
I have recently started working as a web developer. I work with ASP .NET MVC 4 and NHibernate.
At my work-place, we are strictly made to use viewmodels to transfer data to and fro between a controller and a view. And the viewmodels are not supposed to contain any object of a model.
I understand that it is a sort of a tier between the controller and the view.
But I find it repetitive and redundant to write a viewmodel class even if we can directly send the model's object to the view (in most cases).
For example, if i want to display an order i can do this in the controller's action -
return View(Repository.Get<Order>(id));
But instead, I have to write a viewmodel, fill it with the fetched order and then pass it to the view.
So, my question is, what purpose does writing viewmodels serve when we can use the model's object as it is?
For smaller projects, you're right. I hear your argument and sympathise - however there are good reasons for this, drudged and repetitive work, especially in larger and more complicated applications:
It's essential to perform all processing within the Controller's action. However in the example you've given, the Repository.Get method might return a lazily-evaluated IQueryable object, which would mean the DB wouldn't be hit until the View is evaluated. For a variety of reasons this is bad. (A workaround is to call .ToList while still in the controller).
"A view should not contain any non-presentational logic" and "You should not trust the View" (because a View could be user-provided). By providing a Model object (potentially still connected to an active DatabaseContext) a view can make malicious changes to your database.
A View's data-to-display does not always map 1:1 with its Model's data, for example consider a User Details page:
A User's EF Model object represents its entity in the database, so it probably looks like this: User { UserId, UserName, PasswordHash, PasswordSalt, EmailAddress, CreatedDate }, whereas the fields on a "User details" page are going to be User { UserId, UserName, Password, ConfirmYourPassword, EmailAddress }, do you see the difference? Ergo, you cannot use the EF User model as the view model, you have to use a separate class.
The dangers of model manipulation: if you let ASP.NET MVC (or any other framework) do the model binding to the incoming HTTP POST Request then (taking the User details example above), a user could reset anyone's password by faking the UserId property value. ASP.NET will rewrite that value during binding and unless you specifically sanitize it (which will be just as drudgeful as making individual ViewModels anyway) then this vulnerability will remain.
In projects with multiple developers working in a team situation, is is important that everything is consistent. It is not consistent to have some pages using bespoke ViewModels but other pages using EF Models because the team does not share a concious mind, things have to be documented and generally make-sense. For the same reason a single developer can get away without putting excessive XML documentation in his source code, but in a team situation you'll fall apart if you don't.
There is a slight workaround in your case I'll share with you, but please note the preconditions:
Your views can be fully trusted
Your views contain only presentational logic
Your application is largely CRUD
Your views correspond 1:1 with each EF entity model (i.e. no JOINs)
Your views only deal with single Simple models for POST forms, not Complex models (i.e. an object graph)
...then you can do this:
Put all one-way, non-form-related data into your ViewData collection, or the ViewBag in MVC 4 (or even a generic ViewData<T> if you're hardcore). This is useful for storing HTML page titles and sharing data with Master pages.
Use your fully-evaluated and loaded EF models as your View<TModel> models.
But use this approach with caution because it can introduce inconsistency.
Well, i'm starting to think the pragmatic approach to every problem is required and not to just subscribe to the purist architectural standards out there. Your app may be required to run in the wild and be maintained by many developers serving a large set of client etc. and this may direct or drive your architecture.
The ViewModel is essential when you want a separation of concerns between your DomainModel (DataModel) and the rest of your code.
The less dependencies you have between the Model, View and Controller the easier down the line it will be to make changes to the DomainModel without breaking the interface contracts in the View and Controller etc. etc. But once again it's something to be pragmatic. I like the approach as code re-factoring is a big part of system maintenance - refactoring may include a simple spelling mistake on a property of a Model - that change could ripple through the code to the Contract level if the dependencies are not separated; for example.
The ViewModel is used to translate the data between your DomainModel and you Views
A simple example of a datetime stored in Informix has to be translated to a .Net DateTime. The ViewModel is the perfect place to do this translation and does not force you to put translation code in all sorts of unwanted places.
One attribute of a good design [of anything] is the ability to replace or modify a part of the implementation with little or no affects to the rest of the parts of the system. But this takes effort and time to achieve - it's up to you to find that practical balance between a perfect design and a design that is just enough
But yeah, there are many other good reasons to use certain patterns - but the bottom line is this:
Nothing forces you to use ViewModels... ASP.NET MVC won't force you. Take advice from the pragmatist inside you.
If you use same Models as your ViewModels, your application should be very small and simple and should contain only CRUD operations. But if you are building large or enterprise applications with large teams (with two or probably more developers), you should have concepts like Dependency Injection, Services, Repositories, Façades, Units of Work, Data Access Objects etc.
To simplify your mapping needs between Models and ViewModels, you can use AutoMapper
https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper
or install with nuget
Install-Package AutoMapper
According to me, it is essential to have one more layer(ViewModel) on top of Model layer for complex applications that performs most of the CRUD operations because it has following advantages:
To establish loose coupling between Model and Controller. So that any DataModel related modifications will not be affected to Controller.
If you've implemented your application's ViewModel layer correctly
by providing maximum level of IOC(Inversion of Control) via
DI(dependency Injection using Unity/other frameworks), etc., it will
also help you to MOQ your ViewModels(dependencies) for testing only
the controller's logic.
With MVC3, should I design my view models such that there is one that is bound to the view (DisplayModel), and one that is posted back to the controller (EditModel)?
To clarify, I am not asking about data models vs. view models -- I know it's not good to bind my views/controllers to data/domain models.
Nor am I asking about sharing one model across two separate views, one view that is used for displaying the data, and another view that is used for editing the data.
Rather, I am asking about one view that is used for editing data, and the model that is bound to the view vs. the model that is bound to the controller action.
In other words, if this is my view:
#model MyApp.Models.CustomerModel
Should my controller action look like:
public ActionResult Index(CustomerModel model)
Or:
public ActionResult Index(CustomerEditModel model)
At one point, we were doing the latter (separate). But lately, we've started doing the former (shared).
The reason for this change was because:
With MVC3 unobtrusive validation, if I'm using DataAnnotations on my model for validation, this is needed in both models if they are separated (on the display model to map client-side validation, and on the edit model for server-side validation).
As our application matured, we realized that our display and edit models were 95% identical, with the exception of the select lists that were in our view models. We've now moved these to a shared class and are passing these in via the view now.
But I've seen some other discussions that point to having shared models for view/controller to be a bad idea, and that it violates separation of concerns.
Can someone help me understand the tradeoffs for these two approaches?
I've seen perfectly good arguments for and against, it just depends what works best for your application. There's no one size fits all approach that can be applied!
If you haven't read it Jimmy Bogard has written a very good post about how his team does MVC here, which covers this topic.
I agree with rich.okelly's answer that there's no right approach.
There are a couple of concerns I have with using one model, though.
It's going to be very to always use one model without having unneeded properties when the view needs to display a selectable list of objects. The model will need to have the list of objects as well as a property to accept the POSTed value the user chooses. These unneeded properties add a small amount of code clutter and overhead.
(One way around this is to have the model contain only selected ID and have HTML helpers to build the lists.)
Another concern is more related to security.
A common scenario is displaying information in a form that should be considered read-only.
In the case of a ViewModel and an EditModel, the EditModel will only contain properties that are expected to be POSTed, whereas the ViewModel will contain all of the properties.
For example, if a form displays a user's salary, a user will be able to POST a 'salary' and have it bound to the ViewModel's Salary property automatically by MVC.
At this point, something has to be done to ensure it doesn't end up in the database. It could be if/else logic, a Bind attribute, Automapper logic or something else, but the point is that it's a step that could be overlooked.
When considering the lifespan of an application, I like the explicitness of the EditModel over time.
These concerns don't mean that two models are good and one model is bad, but they should be considered when choosing a design.
If the properties are the same for display and edit view models I see no reason to have separate classes.
I think you'll find that it's hit or miss no matter what way you go but if you can take the path of easiest maintainability then you should do that. In my experience, having a single model is much easier to maintain, obviously, but it seems that there is always some business decision that is made that forces me to split the models. If you're in that 95% then I think you are in really good shape. Your application, from a maintainability perspective related to your models, will be easy to maintain. When a change comes along, you have one place to make that change, for the most part. The issue I always seem to run into is scaling business changes across multiple models. Copy/paste issues, or simply forgetting about some property somewhere, always seems to hurt me because of the multi-model issue.
we realized that our display and edit models were 95% identical, with the
exception of the select lists that were in our view models. We've now
moved these to a shared class and are passing these in via the view now.
Are they 95% identical in data and operations or only in data? Remember that classes encapsulate data and behavior.
If they are 95% similar in properties but have totally different operations you might benefit from splitting them in two classes. Or you might not :)
As others pointed out there is no one-size-fit-all answer and in your case it seems that one class is OK...but if you start noticing that the behavior on each of them is unrelated don't be afraid to rethink you approach.
No - one view model for both directions. Mixing it up is not only harder to follow, but one could easily inject invalid values into the page that then get automatically bound. I could overwrite your customerid (or create one) for example.
Inherit from a base view model if you must or don't rely on data annotations at all and use the fluent api on your model save.
A great link (somewhat unrelated but the auto map is nice)
edit
(sorry someone else previously posted this below I just realized)
http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/06/30/how-we-do-mvc-view-models/
Also
ASP.net MVC - One ViewModel per View or per Action?
You (IMHO) should be generally binding to your method specific VieWModel rather than a shared view model. You could get caught in a trap of missing properties, etc. but it may also work just fine for you.
Use auto mapper to go between both. Jimmy also has a nice AutoMap attribute when returning to the View. Going back the other way I would not use a CustomerModel in general as there may be fields required in there that are not coming from my say, create view. For example a customer id may be a required field and for a "create" action it won't be present. But - if you find in the most of your cases this to actually work for you, then there is no reason at all not to use it.
This might be similar to ASP.NET MVC - Populate Commonly Used Dropdownlists.
I want to populate DropDownLists. Some of it is static data. Some of it comes from the Database. A couple of times I found myself forgetting to call the code that populates my lists and sets the ViewBag accordingly. It is almost worth adding a unit test for this. The only way I think that this suits a unit test is if you place it in model/service. Is there a best practice for this kind of thing?
I'd suggest that the data is contained within the model but is perhaps constructed by a html.helper method. this way, you keep the plumbing markup out of the view and leave the controller free to invoke the neccesary view and model.
You could also of course hand it off to a partialview with an <IList<SelectList>> model.
cats and their skin :)
If you follow the spirit of the pattern then the Model should supply the View with everything it needs to present to the user that's not static. If you have static dropdown lists then you could say that these could be constructed within the mark-up. If you are passing a SelectList to the View from your Action then I'd stick it in the Model to make things simpler and more coherent.
My rule of thumb is that the data must somehow be in the model, either as a ready to use SelectList or at worst in some container that can easily be turned into a SelectList using a LINQ-to-object call.
The bottom line is that the view should never contain any non trivial code.
EDIT (answer to your comment):
I try not to put too much code in models. Models are more like a simple bunch of data gathered by the controller and used by the view.
Regarding simple and/or common things such as the days of week, I believe an HTML helper is the most elegant solution. See WayneC's answer in this question.
I am wondering if it is a good idea or bad, placing things like a List of countries in ViewModel, for binding to a drop down list? For example on a site's Registration page.
I was under the impression that a ViewModel is supposed to represent an instance of the filled out form, but I think I may be wrong as I have seen other people put things like lists in their ViewModel.
Would it not be better to put it in a static class somewhere and called directly from the View?
Like CommonData.ListCountries(); and then using Lambda to convert to SelectList item list in the view Directly?
As you've realized there are a variety of ways to accomplish your goal. While the MVC design pattern encourages certain application organizations how you organize your models, views and controllers is ultimately a matter of preference.
Scott Allen discusses his preference for dealing with ASP.NET MVC drop down lists in a blog post. Scott uses an extension method to convert an enumerable of a complex type into an IEnumerable<SelectListItem> on his model. He then describes that upon post back ASP.NET MVC will not be returning the IEnumerable<SelectListItem> he sent to the view, but only the value the user selected. He then suggests that utilizing two models can simplify things.
This is a reasonable description of what I refer to as ViewModels and FormModels. A ViewModel carries the display data to the view and a FormModel is used for carrying collected data back to a controller action. To explain further:
ViewModels contain data that help render views. By organizing my ViewModels this way I can place all necessary information to render a particular view into an associated model. This prevents me from having to use ViewData for anything that's not truly temporary.
FormModels are used to gather user input. FormModels (almost) never contain references to other complex types and are made up of primitives, DateTimes, and strings.
In either case I have a hard rule to never reuse a model for a different view. Having your models closely aligned with the views used to render them makes your views easier to write. You don't have to worry about things like static methods because your models should be carrying data to their associated views in a form that is easy for them to render. Tools like AutoMapper can help "flatten" domain objects into models for display purposes.
For additional reading checkout: ASP.NET MVC terminology is tripping me up - why 'ViewModel'?
Whatever data your View needs, put it in the ViewModel.
The way i see it, once your view is going through the rendering process, it should have all the info it needs from the Model it is bound to.
If you start to use helper methods, then the View is "going back to the controller" in a sense. Extension/helper methods are fine for formatting, etc, but they should not call through the model.
Don't forget, you also have ViewData (basically HttpContext.Current.Items, lives for single request), which is a lightweight storage mechanism that can be used to share data across partial views (for example).
I have a question regarding keeping the controller and view separate. It seems to me that the controller should only pass a model to the view, and the view decides how to display the model. This way, the controller and model stay separate and can be independently developed. However, a lot of tutorials I see online and even in the book Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework, I see a lot of examples using either ViewData["string"] or TempData["string"].
Doesn't this introduce two problems? The first one is that the view is now somewhat coupled to the controller in that it has to know the name of the strings that the controller is setting in ViewData/TempData. The second is that these are loosely-typed, meaning there's no Intellisense. If I was developing the controller, I can't just tell another developer working on the view to just use Intellisense for the model, I'd have to give him the name of the strings, and if I ever change the string names, I'd also have to change it in the view.
I guess ultimately what I'm asking is, is this right? Or am I not understanding something?
View Data is one of the a way to pass information between the view and the controller but, as you said, there's no intellisence and it increase coupling. Instead, you should consider using a ViewModel. See Scott Gu NerdDinner example (freely available) about the way to use ViewModel and about the pros and cons of ViewDate vs ViewModel.
I hope it will help.
I think that the tutorials and book are using this method to try and make things a little easier to start out. However, I my opinion is that this might be starting some bad habits as you suggest.
The way I do it roughly based upon this article by Jimmy Bogard:
All views are strongly-typed
One specific ViewModel class per View
The View determines what data is in the ViewModel
I don't use the Auto-Mapper as he does though. I usually use a utility method to convert my Model object to the associated ViewModel object.
Yes you are right, it's considered best practice to create a class often called ViewModel that is being sent to/used in the View. The ViewModel usually contains the model as well as any other data the view might need, such as page number for a paginated list view, or values for a list for the view to display.