ASP.NET MVC ViewModel mapping with custom formatting - asp.net-mvc

The project I'm working on has a large number of currency properties in the domain model and I'm needing for format these as $#,###.## for transmitting to and from the view. I've had a view thoughts as to different approaches which could be used. One approach could be to format the values explicitly inside the view, as in "Pattern 1" from Steve Michelotti :
<%= string.Format("{0:c}",
Model.CurrencyProperty) %>
...but this starts violating DRY principle very quickly.
The preferred approach appears to be to do the formatting during the mapping between DomainModel and a ViewModel (as per ASP.NET MVC in Action section 4.4.1 and "Pattern 3"). Using AutoMapper, this will result in some code like the following:
[TestFixture]
public class ViewModelTests
{
[Test]
public void DomainModelMapsToViewModel()
{
var domainModel = new DomainModel {CurrencyProperty = 19.95m};
var viewModel = new ViewModel(domainModel);
Assert.That(viewModel.CurrencyProperty, Is.EqualTo("$19.95"));
}
}
public class DomainModel
{
public decimal CurrencyProperty { get; set; }
}
public class ViewModel
{
///<summary>Currency Property - formatted as $#,###.##</summary>
public string CurrencyProperty { get; set; }
///<summary>Setup mapping between domain and view model</summary>
static ViewModel()
{
// map dm to vm
Mapper.CreateMap<DomainModel, ViewModel>()
.ForMember(vm => vm.CurrencyProperty, mc => mc.AddFormatter<CurrencyFormatter>());
}
/// <summary> Creates the view model from the domain model.</summary>
public ViewModel(DomainModel domainModel)
{
Mapper.Map(domainModel, this);
}
public ViewModel() { }
}
public class CurrencyFormatter : IValueFormatter
{
///<summary>Formats source value as currency</summary>
public string FormatValue(ResolutionContext context)
{
return string.Format(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture, "{0:c}", context.SourceValue);
}
}
Using IValueFormatter this way works great. Now, how to map it back from the DomainModel to ViewModel? I've tried using a custom class CurrencyResolver : ValueResolver<string,decimal>
public class CurrencyResolver : ValueResolver<string, decimal>
{
///<summary>Parses source value as currency</summary>
protected override decimal ResolveCore(string source)
{
return decimal.Parse(source, NumberStyles.Currency, CultureInfo.CurrentCulture);
}
}
And then mapped it with:
// from vm to dm
Mapper.CreateMap<ViewModel, DomainModel>()
.ForMember(dm => dm.CurrencyProperty,
mc => mc
.ResolveUsing<CurrencyResolver>()
.FromMember(vm => vm.CurrencyProperty));
Which will satisfy this test:
///<summary>DomainModel maps to ViewModel</summary>
[Test]
public void ViewModelMapsToDomainModel()
{
var viewModel = new ViewModel {CurrencyProperty = "$19.95"};
var domainModel = new DomainModel();
Mapper.Map(viewModel, domainModel);
Assert.That(domainModel.CurrencyProperty, Is.EqualTo(19.95m));
}
... But I'm feeling that I shouldn't need to explicitly define which property it is being mapped from with FromMember after doing ResolveUsing since the properties have the same name - is there a better way to define this mapping? As I mentioned, there are a good number of properties with currency values that will need to be mapped in this fashion.
That being said - is there a way I could have these mappings automatically resolved by defining some rule globally? The ViewModel properties are already decorated with DataAnnotation attributes [DataType(DataType.Currency)] for validation, so I was hoping that I could define some rule that does:
if (destinationProperty.PropertyInfo.Attributes.Has(DataType(DataType.Currency))
then Mapper.Use<CurrencyFormatter>()
if (sourceProperty.PropertyInfo.Attributes.Has(DataType(DataType.Currency))
then Mapper.Use<CurrencyResolver>()
... so that I can minimize the amount of boilerplate setup for each of the object types.
I'm also interested in hearing of any alternate strategies for accomplishing custom formatting to-and-from the View.
From ASP.NET MVC in Action:
At first we might be tempted to pass
this simple object straight to the
view, but the DateTime? properties
[in the Model] will cause problems.
For instance, we need to choose a
formatting for them such as
ToShortDateString() or ToString(). The
view would be forced to do null
checking to keep the screen from
blowing up when the properties are
null. Views are difficult to unit
test, so we want to keep them as thin
as possible. Because the output of a
view is a string passed to the
response stream, we’ll only use
objects that are stringfriendly; that
is, objects that will never fail when
ToString() is called on them. The
ConferenceForm view model object is an
example of this. Notice in listing
4.14 that all of the properties are strings. We’ll have the dates properly
formatted before this view model
object is placed in view data. This
way, the view need not consider the
object, and it can format the
information properly.

Have you considered using an extension method to format money?
public static string ToMoney( this decimal source )
{
return string.Format( "{0:c}", source );
}
<%= Model.CurrencyProperty.ToMoney() %>
Since this is clearly a view-related (not model-related) issue, I'd try to keep it in the view if at all possible. This basically moves it to an extension method on decimal, but the usage is in the view. You could also do an HtmlHelper extension:
public static string FormatMoney( this HtmlHelper helper, decimal amount )
{
return string.Format( "{0:c}", amount );
}
<%= Html.FormatMoney( Model.CurrencyProperty ) %>
If you liked that style better. It is somewhat more View-related as it's an HtmlHelper extension.

Have you considered putting a DisplayFormat on your ViewModel? That is what I use and it's quick and simple.
ViewModel :
[DisplayFormat(DataFormatString = "{0:c}", ApplyFormatInEditMode = true)]
public decimal CurrencyProperty { get; set; }
View :
#Html.DisplayFor(m => m.CurrencyProperty)

A custom TypeConverter is what you're looking for:
Mapper.CreateMap<string, decimal>().ConvertUsing<MoneyToDecimalConverter>();
Then create the converter:
public class MoneyToDecimalConverter : TypeConverter<string, decimal>
{
protected override decimal ConvertCore(string source)
{
// magic here to convert from string to decimal
}
}

Related

How to bind view model property with different name

Is there a way to make a reflection for a view model property as an element with different name and id values on the html side.
That is the main question of what I want to achieve. So the basic introduction for the question is like:
1- I have a view model (as an example) which created for a filter operation in view side.
public class FilterViewModel
{
public string FilterParameter { get; set; }
}
2- I have a controller action which is created for GETting form values(here it is filter)
public ActionResult Index(FilterViewModel filter)
{
return View();
}
3- I have a view that a user can filter on some data and sends parameters via querystring over form submit.
#using (Html.BeginForm("Index", "Demo", FormMethod.Get))
{
#Html.LabelFor(model => model.FilterParameter)
#Html.EditorFor(model => model.FilterParameter)
<input type="submit" value="Do Filter" />
}
4- And what I want to see in rendered view output is
<form action="/Demo" method="get">
<label for="fp">FilterParameter</label>
<input id="fp" name="fp" type="text" />
<input type="submit" value="Do Filter" />
</form>
5- And as a solution I want to modify my view model like this:
public class FilterViewModel
{
[BindParameter("fp")]
[BindParameter("filter")] // this one extra alias
[BindParameter("param")] //this one extra alias
public string FilterParameter { get; set; }
}
So the basic question is about BindAttribute but the usage of complex type properties. But also if there is a built in way of doing this is much better.
Built-in pros:
1- Usage with TextBoxFor, EditorFor, LabelFor and other strongly typed view model helpers can understand and communicate better with each other.
2- Url routing support
3- No framework by desing problems :
In general, we recommend folks don’t write custom model binders
because they’re difficult to get right and they’re rarely needed. The
issue I’m discussing in this post might be one of those cases where
it’s warranted.
Link of quote
And also after some research I found these useful works:
Binding model property with different name
One step upgrade of first link
Here some informative guide
Result: But none of them give me my problems exact solution. I am looking for a strongly typed solution for this problem. Of course if you know any other way to go, please share.
Update
The underlying reasons why I want to do this are basically:
1- Everytime I want to change the html control name then I have to change PropertyName at compile time. (There is a difference Changing a property name between changing a string in code)
2- I want to hide (camouflage) real property names from end users. Most of times View Model property names same as mapped Entity Objects property names. (For developer readability reasons)
3- I don't want to remove the readability for developer. Think about lots of properties with like 2-3 character long and with mo meanings.
4- There are lots of view models written. So changing their names are going to take more time than this solution.
5- This is going to be better solution (in my POV) than others which are described in other questions until now.
Actually, there is a way to do it.
In ASP.NET binding metadata gathered by TypeDescriptor, not by reflection directly. To be more precious, AssociatedMetadataTypeTypeDescriptionProvider is used, which, in turn, simply calls TypeDescriptor.GetProvider with our model type as parameter:
public AssociatedMetadataTypeTypeDescriptionProvider(Type type)
: base(TypeDescriptor.GetProvider(type))
{
}
So, everything we need is to set our custom TypeDescriptionProvider for our model.
Let's implement our custom provider. First of all, let's define attribute for custom property name:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
public class CustomBindingNameAttribute : Attribute
{
public CustomBindingNameAttribute(string propertyName)
{
this.PropertyName = propertyName;
}
public string PropertyName { get; private set; }
}
If you already have attribute with desired name, you can reuse it. Attribute defined above is just an example. I prefer to use JsonPropertyAttribute because in most cases I work with json and Newtonsoft's library and want to define custom name only once.
The next step is to define custom type descriptor. We will not implement whole type descriptor logic and use default implementation. Only property accessing will be overridden:
public class MyTypeDescription : CustomTypeDescriptor
{
public MyTypeDescription(ICustomTypeDescriptor parent)
: base(parent)
{
}
public override PropertyDescriptorCollection GetProperties()
{
return Wrap(base.GetProperties());
}
public override PropertyDescriptorCollection GetProperties(Attribute[] attributes)
{
return Wrap(base.GetProperties(attributes));
}
private static PropertyDescriptorCollection Wrap(PropertyDescriptorCollection src)
{
var wrapped = src.Cast<PropertyDescriptor>()
.Select(pd => (PropertyDescriptor)new MyPropertyDescriptor(pd))
.ToArray();
return new PropertyDescriptorCollection(wrapped);
}
}
Also custom property descriptor need to be implemented. Again, everything except property name will be handled by default descriptor. Note, NameHashCode for some reason is a separate property. As name changed, so it's hash code need to be changed too:
public class MyPropertyDescriptor : PropertyDescriptor
{
private readonly PropertyDescriptor _descr;
private readonly string _name;
public MyPropertyDescriptor(PropertyDescriptor descr)
: base(descr)
{
this._descr = descr;
var customBindingName = this._descr.Attributes[typeof(CustomBindingNameAttribute)] as CustomBindingNameAttribute;
this._name = customBindingName != null ? customBindingName.PropertyName : this._descr.Name;
}
public override string Name
{
get { return this._name; }
}
protected override int NameHashCode
{
get { return this.Name.GetHashCode(); }
}
public override bool CanResetValue(object component)
{
return this._descr.CanResetValue(component);
}
public override object GetValue(object component)
{
return this._descr.GetValue(component);
}
public override void ResetValue(object component)
{
this._descr.ResetValue(component);
}
public override void SetValue(object component, object value)
{
this._descr.SetValue(component, value);
}
public override bool ShouldSerializeValue(object component)
{
return this._descr.ShouldSerializeValue(component);
}
public override Type ComponentType
{
get { return this._descr.ComponentType; }
}
public override bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return this._descr.IsReadOnly; }
}
public override Type PropertyType
{
get { return this._descr.PropertyType; }
}
}
Finally, we need our custom TypeDescriptionProvider and way to bind it to our model type. By default, TypeDescriptionProviderAttribute is designed to perform that binding. But in this case we will not able to get default provider that we want to use internally. In most cases, default provider will be ReflectTypeDescriptionProvider. But this is not guaranteed and this provider is inaccessible due to it's protection level - it's internal. But we do still want to fallback to default provider.
TypeDescriptor also allow to explicitly add provider for our type via AddProvider method. That what we will use. But firstly, let's define our custom provider itself:
public class MyTypeDescriptionProvider : TypeDescriptionProvider
{
private readonly TypeDescriptionProvider _defaultProvider;
public MyTypeDescriptionProvider(TypeDescriptionProvider defaultProvider)
{
this._defaultProvider = defaultProvider;
}
public override ICustomTypeDescriptor GetTypeDescriptor(Type objectType, object instance)
{
return new MyTypeDescription(this._defaultProvider.GetTypeDescriptor(objectType, instance));
}
}
The last step is to bind our provider to our model types. We can implement it in any way we want. For example, let's define some simple class, such as:
public static class TypeDescriptorsConfig
{
public static void InitializeCustomTypeDescriptorProvider()
{
// Assume, this code and all models are in one assembly
var types = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()
.Where(t => t.GetProperties().Any(p => p.IsDefined(typeof(CustomBindingNameAttribute))));
foreach (var type in types)
{
var defaultProvider = TypeDescriptor.GetProvider(type);
TypeDescriptor.AddProvider(new MyTypeDescriptionProvider(defaultProvider), type);
}
}
}
And either invoke that code via web activation:
[assembly: PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(TypeDescriptorsConfig), "InitializeCustomTypeDescriptorProvider")]
Or simply call it in Application_Start method:
public class MvcApplication : HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start()
{
TypeDescriptorsConfig.InitializeCustomTypeDescriptorProvider();
// rest of init code ...
}
}
But this is not the end of the story. :(
Consider following model:
public class TestModel
{
[CustomBindingName("actual_name")]
[DisplayName("Yay!")]
public string TestProperty { get; set; }
}
If we try to write in .cshtml view something like:
#model Some.Namespace.TestModel
#Html.DisplayNameFor(x => x.TestProperty) #* fail *#
We will get ArgumentException:
An exception of type 'System.ArgumentException' occurred in System.Web.Mvc.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: The property Some.Namespace.TestModel.TestProperty could not be found.
That because all helpers soon or later invoke ModelMetadata.FromLambdaExpression method. And this method take expression we provided (x => x.TestProperty) and takes member name directly from member info and have no clue about any of our attributes, metadata (who cares, huh?):
internal static ModelMetadata FromLambdaExpression<TParameter, TValue>(/* ... */)
{
// ...
case ExpressionType.MemberAccess:
MemberExpression memberExpression = (MemberExpression) expression.Body;
propertyName = memberExpression.Member is PropertyInfo ? memberExpression.Member.Name : (string) null;
// I want to cry here - ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ...
}
For x => x.TestProperty (where x is TestModel) this method will return TestProperty, not actual_name, but model metadata contains actual_name property, have no TestProperty. That is why the property could not be found error thrown.
This is a design failure.
However despite this little inconvenience there are several workarounds, such as:
The easiest way is to access our members by theirs redefined names:
#model Some.Namespace.TestModel
#Html.DisplayName("actual_name") #* this will render "Yay!" *#
This is not good. No intellisense at all and as our model change we will have no any compilation errors. On any change anything can be broken and there is no easy way to detect that.
Another way is a bit more complex - we can create our own version of that helpers and forbid anybody from calling default helpers or ModelMetadata.FromLambdaExpression for model classes with renamed properties.
Finally, combination of previous two would be preferred: write own analogue to get property name with redefinition support, then pass that into default helper. Something like this:
#model Some.Namespace.TestModel
#Html.DisplayName(Html.For(x => x.TestProperty))
Compilation-time and intellisense support and no need to spend a lot of time for complete set of helpers. Profit!
Also everything described above work like a charm for model binding. During model binding process default binder also use metadata, gathered by TypeDescriptor.
But I guess binding json data is the best use case. You know, lots of web software and standards use lowercase_separated_by_underscores naming convention. Unfortunately this is not usual convention for C#. Having classes with members named in different convention looks ugly and can end up in troubles. Especially when you have tools that whining every time about naming violation.
ASP.NET MVC default model binder does not bind json to model the same way as it happens when you call newtonsoft's JsonConverter.DeserializeObject method. Instead, json parsed into dictionary. For example:
{
complex: {
text: "blabla",
value: 12.34
},
num: 1
}
will be translated into following dictionary:
{ "complex.text", "blabla" }
{ "complex.value", "12.34" }
{ "num", "1" }
And later these values along with others values from query string, route data and so on, collected by different implementations of IValueProvider, will be used by default binder to bind a model with help of metadata, gathered by TypeDescriptor.
So we came full circle from creating model, rendering, binding it back and use it.
The short answer is NO and long answer still NO. There is no built-in helper, attribute, model binder, whatever is it (Nothing out of box).
But what I did in before answer (I deleted it) was an awful solution that I realized yesterday. I am going to put it in github for who still wants to see (maybe it solves somebody problem) (I don't suggest it also!)
Now I searched it for again and I couldn't find anything helpful. If you are using something like AutoMapper or ValueInjecter like tool for mapping your ViewModel objects to Business objects and if you want to obfuscate that View Model parameters also, probably you are in some trouble. Of course you can do it but strongly typed html helpers are not going to help you alot. I even not talking about the if other developers taking branch and working over common view models.
Luckily my project (4 people working on it, and its commercial use for) not that big for now, so I decided to change View Model property names! (It is still lot work to do. Hundreds of view models to obfuscate their properties!!!) Thank you Asp.Net MVC !
There some ways in the links which I gave in question. But also if you still want to use the BindAlias attribute, I can only suggest you to use the following extension methods. At least you dont have to write same alias string which you write in BindAlias attribute.
Here it is:
public static string AliasNameFor<TModel, TProperty>(this HtmlHelper<TModel> htmlHelper,
Expression<Func<TModel, TProperty>> expression)
{
var memberExpression = ExpressionHelpers.GetMemberExpression(expression);
if (memberExpression == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Expression must be a member expression");
var aliasAttr = memberExpression.Member.GetAttribute<BindAliasAttribute>();
if (aliasAttr != null)
{
return MvcHtmlString.Create(aliasAttr.Alias).ToHtmlString();
}
return htmlHelper.NameFor(expression).ToHtmlString();
}
public static string AliasIdFor<TModel, TProperty>(this HtmlHelper<TModel> htmlHelper,
Expression<Func<TModel, TProperty>> expression)
{
var memberExpression = ExpressionHelpers.GetMemberExpression(expression);
if (memberExpression == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Expression must be a member expression");
var aliasAttr = memberExpression.Member.GetAttribute<BindAliasAttribute>();
if (aliasAttr != null)
{
return MvcHtmlString.Create(TagBuilder.CreateSanitizedId(aliasAttr.Alias)).ToHtmlString();
}
return htmlHelper.IdFor(expression).ToHtmlString();
}
public static T GetAttribute<T>(this ICustomAttributeProvider provider)
where T : Attribute
{
var attributes = provider.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(T), true);
return attributes.Length > 0 ? attributes[0] as T : null;
}
public static MemberExpression GetMemberExpression<TModel, TProperty>(Expression<Func<TModel, TProperty>> expression)
{
MemberExpression memberExpression;
if (expression.Body is UnaryExpression)
{
var unaryExpression = (UnaryExpression)expression.Body;
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)unaryExpression.Operand;
}
else
{
memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
}
return memberExpression;
}
When you want to use it:
[ModelBinder(typeof(AliasModelBinder))]
public class FilterViewModel
{
[BindAlias("someText")]
public string FilterParameter { get; set; }
}
In html:
#* at least you dont write "someText" here again *#
#Html.Editor(Html.AliasNameFor(model => model.FilterParameter))
#Html.ValidationMessage(Html.AliasNameFor(model => model.FilterParameter))
So I am leaving this answer here like this. This is even not an answer (and there is no answer for MVC 5) but who searching in google for same problem might find useful this experience.
And here is the github repo: https://github.com/yusufuzun/so-view-model-bind-20869735

Entity Framework ASP.NET MVC private model fields

There is a field in our database which really ought to be a boolean, but for some reason the original developers made it a CHAR which will either be set to "1" or "0".
[Column("CHARGEABLE")]
[StringLength(1)]
private string Chargeable { get; set; }
I want my model to represent this field as a boolean so I figured I could add a property to my model to wrap it:
[NotMapped]
public bool ChargeableTrue
{
get
{
return Chargeable == "1" ? true : false;
}
set
{
Chargeable = value ? "1" : "0";
}
}
Now on my View I just display the EditorFor ( ChargeableTrue ), but when I click save it doesn't actually update it.
I think what is happening is that when the model is being updated, it's still attempting to get the value of 'Chargeable' from the View, even though I haven't displayed it there. And since there is no input field, it just gets null and ends up saving that to the database.
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(call).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
What is one expected to do in this situation?
Based on KMan's answer, here's the extended version just in case you're not familiar with creating view models.
The idea is that your domain object is not really what you want to be updating exactly from your views. Instead, you create a go-between that can also include view-specific items (like a list of objects to populate a drop-down).
public class MyViewModel {
public bool Chargeable { get; set; }
}
Now you can do this:
#* In view *#
Html.EditorFor(m => m.Chargeable)
// In controller
public ActionResult Save(MyViewModel model) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
var domainObject = new MyObject() {
Chargeable = model.Chargeable ? "1" : "0"
};
// the rest of your code using domainObject
}
}
I'd consider just creating an overload of your domain object's constructor that accepts your view model to keep the mapping in one place. I typically use a tool like AutoMapper to map objects or manual extension methods.
A view model typically contains a sub-set of your domain object's properties, but can contain all of them or more properties like lists, visbility states, etc. They come in incredibly useful and I've never done a MVC project where I haven't used them.
Use a view model and make your mapping on the controller.

MVC3 – ViewModels and controller functionalty: suggested design patterns

I have built a simple MVC3-based ticket entry site for a less-than-usable call center application and am attempting to refactor my prototype to better adhere to design patterns partly to make it more maintainable going forward but mostly as a learning exercise.
The user-facing view is a form consisting of basic user information in addition to a few panels allowing selection of various resource types. Each resource type (hardware, software, etc) is displayed in the same way: using dual, filterable listboxes with add/remove buttons, an optional “justification” textarea that conditionally displays if a requested resource requires justification, and general comments.
I have built the following ViewModel for the individual panels:
public class RequestableList
{
// list of requestable items ids requiring justification
private List<string> _restrictedItems = new List<string>();
public List<string> RestrictedItems
{
get { return _restrictedItems; }
set { _restrictedItems = value; }
}
// the key-value pairs from which to populate available items list
private Dictionary<string, string> _availableItems = new Dictionary<string, string>();
public Dictionary<string, string> AvailableItems
{
get { return _availableItems; }
set { _availableItems = value; }
}
// item ids requested by user
private List<string> _requestedItems = new List<string>();
public List<string> RequestedItems
{
get { return _requestedItems; }
set { _requestedItems = value; }
}
}
The main ViewModel is then comprised of multiple RequestableLists as necessary:
public class SimpleRequestViewModel
{
public UserInfo userInfo { get; set; }
public RequestableList Software {get;set;}
public RequestableList Hardware {get;set;}
public RequestableList Access {get;set;}
public string SoftwareAdditionalInfo { get; set; }
public string HardwareAdditionalInfo { get; set; }
public string AccessFileMailShare { get; set; }
public string AccessAdditionalInfo { get; set; }
public string SoftwareJustification { get; set; }
public string HardwareJustification { get; set; }
public string AccessJustification { get; set; }
public string Comment { get; set; }
}
I have created a strongly typed view for SimpleRequestViewModel (and its variant) and a strongly typed EditorTemplate for RequestableList that wires up the dual listboxes, filtering, and jquery. All renders well and is working but the code currently smells.
When posting to the controller, if the model is valid I must translate it into a readable text description in order to create a new ticket in in the call center app. It doesn’t feel right to have the controller performing that translation into readable text but I run into hurdles when trying to design another class to translate the viewmodels.
Only the selected item values are posted so before translating the request into text I must first lookup the appropriate text for the provided values (they are required in description). The controller is currently the only object that has access to the call center data model for this lookup query.
There are 2 similar ViewModels containing varying combinations of RequestableLists so any translator must be able to translate the various combinations. One has only Hardware and Software, another may have Hardware Software, and a few more RequestableLists.
I considered overriding ToString() directly in the ViewModel but didn’t like that business logic (conditional rendering) there, and again, once posted, the ViewModel doesn’t contain the text for the selected items in the listbox so it would need access to the data model.
The translation of posted values to text as it is currently handled in the controller smells as it’s handled in a switch statement. The controller takes each posted RequestableList and populates the original “Available” fields before it builds the new ticket description.
switch (requestCategory)
{
case RequestableCategory.Software:
itemList = sde.GetSoftware();
break;
case RequestableCategory.Hardware:
itemList = sde.GetHardware();
break;
case RequestableCategory.Access:
itemList = sde.GetAccess();
break;
case RequestableCategory.Telecom:
itemList = sde.GetTelecom();
break;
default:
throw new ArgumentException();
}
So, my question(s):
What patterns are techniques would you recommend for performing the posted viewmodel to ticket description translation?
How do you typically handle the “only posts value” issue with select boxes when you need the text as well as the value?
Is there a better way for me to be approaching this problem?
Again, I am hoping this is a learning experience for me and am more than willing to provide additional information or description if needed.
A few suggestions:
Abstract the logic that does the call center submission into its own class. Provide (from the controller) whatever dependencies it needs to access the call center DB. Have different methods to handle the various types of view models using overloading. Presumably the descriptions come from the DB so you can extract the description from the DB based on the value in this class. This class could also take responsibility for building your view models for the display actions as well. Note that with this pattern the class can interact with the DB directly, through a repository, or even via web services/an API.
Use a repository pattern that implements some caching if performance is an issue in looking up the description from the DB the second time. I suspect it won't be unless your call center is very large, but that would be the place to optimize the query logic. The repository can be the thing that the controller passes to the submission class.
If you don't need to access the DB directly in the controller, consider passing the broker class as a dependency directly.
It might look like:
private ICallCenterBroker CallCenterBroker { get; set; }
public RequestController( ICallCenterBroker broker )
{
this.CallCenterBroker = broker;
// if not using DI, instantiate a new one
// this.CallCenterBroker = broker ?? new CallCenterBroker( new CallCenterRepository() );
}
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult CreateSimple()
{
var model = this.CallCenterBroker.CreateSimpleModel( this.User.Identity.Name );
return View( model );
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult CreateSimple( SimpleRequestViewModel request )
{
if (Model.IsValid)
{
var ticket = this.CallCenterBroker.CreateTicket( request );
// do something with ticket, perhaps create a different model for display?
this.CallCenterBroker.SubmitTicket( ticket );
return RedirectToAction( "index" ); // list all requests?
}
return View();
}

How to inject custom ModelMetadata properties and use them in Html helpers

The idea (simplified) is to have user definable properties in ViewModel contained in a dictionary. Something along these lines:
public class MyViewModel
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
[DisplayName("User address")]
public string Address { get; set; }
// ...
public IDictionary<string, string> MetaData { get; set; }
}
Let's say that MetaData contains several additional properties: PhoneNumber, Email, etc. that you can access with myViewModel.MetaData["PhoneNumber"].
What I would like to do is to be able to use those additional MetaData properties in Html helpers on View side, just like I would use normal properties.
So, in addition to using standard properties as:
Html.TextBox("Name")
I would also like to use those additional properties:
Html.TextBox("PhoneNumber")
My research lead me to inheriting from DataAnnotationsModelMetadataProvider (since it's necessary to also support standard DataAnnotations attributes for standard properties) and trying to figure out what exactly to override there in order to inject additional properties as additional ModelMetadata elements, but I'm kind of stuck.
Am I on the right path? Any additional pointer that could help me here?
Thanks
An alternative option might be to construct a dynamic object similar to ViewBag/ViewData in MVC 3. You would have an object which you could access via Model.MetaData.Foo and Foo would actually map to a key in your dictionary.
The type which backs the ViewBag object is System.Web.Mvc.DynamicViewDataDictionary; this class is internal and sealed so you would have to make a custom implementation of it (unless there's a better option I'm unaware of). A quick glance at the MVC 3 sources furnished this:
internal sealed class DynamicViewDataDictionary : DynamicObject {
private readonly Func<ViewDataDictionary> _viewDataThunk;
public DynamicViewDataDictionary(Func<ViewDataDictionary> viewDataThunk) {
_viewDataThunk = viewDataThunk;
}
private ViewDataDictionary ViewData {
get {
ViewDataDictionary viewData = _viewDataThunk();
Debug.Assert(viewData != null);
return viewData;
}
}
// Implementing this function improves the debugging experience as it provides the debugger with the list of all
// the properties currently defined on the object
public override IEnumerable<string> GetDynamicMemberNames() {
return ViewData.Keys;
}
public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result) {
result = ViewData[binder.Name];
// since ViewDataDictionary always returns a result even if the key does not exist, always return true
return true;
}
public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value) {
ViewData[binder.Name] = value;
// you can always set a key in the dictionary so return true
return true;
}
}
One possible advantage to this solution over modifying the ModelMetadataProvider is that you wouldn't have to spend time building all the custom components for your scenario- the default providers should be sufficient.

Validate object based on external factors (ie. data store uniqueness)

Description
My solution has these projects:
DAL = Modified Entity Framework
DTO = Data Transfer objects that are able to validate themselves
BL = Business Layer Services
WEB = presentation Asp.net MVC application
DAL, BL and WEB all reference DTO which is great.
The process usually executes this way:
A web request is made to the WEB
WEB gets DTOs posted
DTOs get automagically validated via custom ActionFilter
validation errors are auto-collected
(Validation is OK) WEB calls into BL providing DTOs
BL calls into DAL by using DTOs (can either pass them through or just use them)
DTO Validation problem then...
My DTOs are able to validate themselves based on their own state (properties' values). But right now I'm presented with a problem when this is not the case. I need them to validate using BL (and consequently DAL).
My real-life example: User registers and WEB gets a User DTO that gets validated. The problematic part is username validation. Its uniqueness should be checked against data store.
How am I supposed to do this?
There's additional info that all DTOs implement an interface (ie. User DTO implements IUser) for IoC purposes and TDD. Both are part of the DTO project.
Impossible tries
I can't reference BL in DTO because I'll get circular reference.
Compilation error
I can't create an additional DTO.Val project that would reference partial DTO classes and implement their validation there (they'd reference BL + DTO).
Partial classes can't span assemblies.
Possible tries
Create a special ActionFilter that would validate object against external conditions. This one would be created within WEB project thus seeing DTO and BL that would be used here.
Put DTOs in BL and keep DTO interfaces as actual DTOs referenced by other projects and refactor all code to use interfaces instead of concrete classes.
Don't handle external dependant validation and let external dependencies throw an exception - probably the worst solution to this issue
What would you suggest?
I would suggest an experiment that i have only been trialling for the last week or so.
Based on this inspiration i am creating DTOs that validate a little differently to that of the DataAnnotations approach. Sample DTO:
public class Contact : DomainBase, IModelObject
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public LazyList<ContactDetail> Details { get; set; }
public DateTime Updated { get; set; }
protected override void ConfigureRules()
{
base.AddRule(new ValidationRule()
{
Properties = new string[] { "name" },
Description = "A Name is required but must not exceed 300 characters in length and some special characters are not allowed",
validator = () => this.Name.IsRequired300LenNoSpecial()
});
base.AddRule(new ValidationRule()
{
Properties = new string[] { "updated" },
Description = "required",
validator = () => this.Updated.IsRequired()
});
}
}
This might look more work than DataAnnotations and well, that's coz it is, but it's not huge. I think it's more presentable in the class (i have some really ugly DTO classes now with DataAnnotations attributes - you can't even see the properties any more). And the power of anonymous delegates in this application is almost book-worthy (so i'm discovering).
Base class:
public partial class DomainBase : IDataErrorInfo
{
private IList<ValidationRule> _rules = new List<ValidationRule>();
public DomainBase()
{
// populate the _rules collection
this.ConfigureRules();
}
protected virtual void ConfigureRules()
{
// no rules if not overridden
}
protected void AddRule(ValidationRule rule)
{
this._rules.Add(rule);
}
#region IDataErrorInfo Members
public string Error
{
get { return String.Empty; } // Validation should call the indexer so return "" here
} // ..we dont need to support this property.
public string this[string columnName]
{
get
{
// get all the rules that apply to the property being validated
var rulesThatApply = this._rules
.Where(r => r.Properties.Contains(columnName));
// get a list of error messages from the rules
StringBuilder errorMessages = new StringBuilder();
foreach (ValidationRule rule in rulesThatApply)
if (!rule.validator.Invoke()) // if validator returns false then the rule is broken
if (errorMessages.ToString() == String.Empty)
errorMessages.Append(rule.Description);
else
errorMessages.AppendFormat("\r\n{0}", rule.Description);
return errorMessages.ToString();
}
}
#endregion
}
ValidationRule and my validation functions:
public class ValidationRule
{
public string[] Properties { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public Func<bool> validator { get; set; }
}
/// <summary>
/// These extention methods return true if the validation condition is met.
/// </summary>
public static class ValidationFunctions
{
#region IsRequired
public static bool IsRequired(this String str)
{
return !str.IsNullOrTrimEmpty();
}
public static bool IsRequired(this int num)
{
return num != 0;
}
public static bool IsRequired(this long num)
{
return num != 0;
}
public static bool IsRequired(this double num)
{
return num != 0;
}
public static bool IsRequired(this Decimal num)
{
return num != 0;
}
public static bool IsRequired(this DateTime date)
{
return date != DateTime.MinValue;
}
#endregion
#region String Lengths
public static bool IsLengthLessThanOrEqual(this String str, int length)
{
return str.Length <= length;
}
public static bool IsRequiredWithLengthLessThanOrEqual(this String str, int length)
{
return !str.IsNullOrTrimEmpty() && (str.Length <= length);
}
public static bool IsRequired300LenNoSpecial(this String str)
{
return !str.IsNullOrTrimEmpty() &&
str.RegexMatch(#"^[- \r\n\\\.!:*,#$%&""?\(\)\w']{1,300}$",
RegexOptions.Multiline) == str;
}
#endregion
}
If my code looks messy well that's because i've only been working on this validation approach for the last few days. I need this idea to meet a few requirements:
I need to support the IDataErrorInfo interface so my MVC layer validates automatically
I need to be able to support complex validation scenarios (the whole point of your question i guess): I want to be able to validate against multiple properties on the same object (ie. StartDate and FinishDate); properties from different/multiple/associated objects like i would have in an object graph; and even other things i haven't thought of yet.
I need to support the idea of an error applying to more than one property
As part of my TDD and DDD journey i want my Domain Objects to describe more my 'domain' than my Service layer methods, so putting these complex conditions in the model objects (not DTOs) seems to achieve this
This approach i think will get me what i want, and maybe you as well.
I'd imagine if you jump on board with me on this that we'd be pretty 'by ourselves' but it might be worth it. I was reading about the new validation capabilities in MVC 2 but it still doesn't meet the above wish list without custom modification.
Hope this helps.
The S#arp Architecture has an [DomainSignature] method identifier that used with the class level validator [HasUniqueDomainSignature] will do the work. See the sample code below:
[HasUniqueDomainSignature]
public class User : Entity
{
public User()
{
}
public User(string login, string email) : this()
{
Login = login;
Email = email;
}
[DomainSignature]
[NotNullNotEmpty]
public virtual string Login { get; set; }
[DomainSignature]
public virtual string Email { get; set; }
}
Take a closer look at http://www.sharparchitecture.net/
I had this exact same problem and after trying to find a work around for days and days and days, I ended up merging my DTO, DAL, and BL into one library. I kept my presentation layer separate.
Not sure if that is an option for you or not. For me, I figured that my chances of ever changing the data store were very slight, and so the separate tier wasn't really needed.
I also have implemented the Microsoft Validation Application Block for all my DTO validations. They have a "Self Validation" method that lets you perform complex validations.
Resulting solution
I ended up using controller action filter that was able to validate object against external factors that can't be obtained from the object itself.
I created the filter that takes the name of the action parameter to check and validator type that will validate that particular parameter. Of course this validator has to implement certain interface to make it all reusable.
[ValidateExternalFactors("user", typeof(UserExternalValidator))]
public ActionResult Create(User user)
validator needs to implement this simple interface
public interface IExternalValidator<T>
{
bool IsValid(T instance);
}
It's a simple and effective solution to a seemingly complex problem.

Resources