Has anyone successfully bound 2 textboxes to one DateTime property using the model binding in MVC, I tried Scott's method http://www.hanselman.com/blog/SplittingDateTimeUnitTestingASPNETMVCCustomModelBinders.aspx but was dissatisfied as this stops the HTML fields and Model properties having the same name (so the validation could not set the correct css if it failed).
My current attempt modifies this by removing the ValueProviderResult object from the bindingcontext and the adding a new one for the key made up from the date result and a tiem (using the .Time convention in Scotts post) but I am a little wary of messing around with the bindingContext object direct.
The idea is that i can use IDateErrorInfo and VAB PropertyComparisonValidator to compare 2 datetimes on the model where one needs to be later than the other, to do this the time element needs to be included.
I use a different approach and go for two different sets of models: My view model would have two properties and the validation for those fields, while my domain model would have one DateTime. Then after the binding, I let the view model update the domain:
public ActionResult Update(DateInput date)
{
if(date.IsValid)
{
var domain = someRepository.GetDomainObject(); // not exactly, but you get the idea.
date.Update(domain);
}
// ...
}
public class DateInput
{
public string Date { get; set; }
public string Time { get; set; }
public void Update(DomainObject domain) { ... }
}
public class DomainObject
{
public DateTime SomePointInTime { get; set; }
}
Related
In Asp.Net MVC, I have a form for creating Advertisement.
public class AdvertisementViewModel
{
public AdvertisementViewModel()
{
this.StartTime = DateTime.Now;
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public DateTime StartTime { get; set; }
// other properties
}
StartTime does not come from the user, but I set it in the constructor.
In my view, user will populate all the input fields and post the model to controller's ActionMethod, where the model will be saved.
Now in order for the StartTime to be passed to ActionMethod, I am adding it as a hidden field to the view so it would be posted back.
Is there a better way of setting start time, as I don't really need it in the view?
I know I can set it in the post action method, but I have different advertisement types and I have to set the StartTime in multiple places. All of my Advertisement types are derived from a base class where StartTime is defined.
I'm trying to get my head around why (data annotation) validation errors are triggering when the page first loads, prior to any Submit/Posts. But more importantly how to fix this.
Reading SO and the interwebs, the reason seems to be model binding triggers validation errors for the view model properties, prior to the view model properties having values. I'm not sure if this is true and what is actually happening, but it sounds legit.
And I've read two workarounds, which sound a bit hacky:
1. Use the ModelState.Clear in the controller action method on the inital page load, OR
2. Initialiase the view model properties in an empty view model constructor. (Yet to confirm this technique)
Both these techniques sound like work-arounds. I'd rather understand what is happening and design my code appropriately.
Have others come across this issue? And if so, what are you doing?
Code as requested. Below you can see the Data Annotation validation on Property1 which is being triggered on initial requests, i.e. first page load.
Controller action method (refactored for simplicity):
public ActionResult Index([Bind(Include = Property1, Property2, Property3, vmclickedSearchButton)] IndexVM vm, string Submit)
{
bool searchButtonClicked = (Submit == "Search") ? true : false;
if (searchButtonClicked)
{
PopulateUIData(vm); // Fetch data from database and pass them to VM
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
vm.clickedSearchButton = true; // Used in the vm to avoid logic execution duing initial requests
DoWork(vm);
}
}
return View(vm);
}
// Inital request
IndexVM newVM = new IndexVM();
PopulateUIData(newVM); // Fetch data from database and pass to VM
return View(newVM);
}
Design note:
Ideally I would like to sepate the rendering and submiting logic into separate action methods.
I.e. rendering within a [HttpGet]Index() action method, and submitting within a [HttpPost]Index() action method.
But since I'm using ForMethod.Get in the View as this method is used for searching functionality, I can only use a [HttpGet] Index action method.
View Model (refactored for simplicity):
public class IndexVM
{
// DropDownLists
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> DDLForProperty1 { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> DDLForProperty2 { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> DDLForProperty3 { get; set; }
[Required]
public int? Property1 { get; set; }
public int? Property2 { get; set; }
public int? Property3 { get; set; }
public bool vmclickedSearchButton { get; set; }
}
Note:
The view model is very simple. It contains drop down lists, selected properties for the DDLs, and a validation rule on one of the properties.
Adding a constructor to the view model and initialising the property workaround:
public IndexVM()
{
this.Property1 = 0;
}
The problem is that you are sending an invalid model to your view.
The Property1 in your model is being required and is a nullable int. This does not explain why validation executes, but why the model is invalid.
Your action method is executing the validation during initial load. Model binding will execute validation regardless of http method (get or post).
Since you are requiring Property1 (int?) to NOT be null, by definition your model becomes invalid when it is instantiated. There are several ways to handle this (not sure which is most appropriate though)
Create separate methods for HttpGet and HttpPost in your controller. Do not implement binding for HttpGet.
Use a default value (as you have done already)
Modify the model so that Property1 is not nullable (i.e. int).
How do you validate a class using Validation attributes when validating strongly typed view models.
Suppose you have a view model like so:
[PropertiesMustMatch("Admin.Password", "Admin.ConfirmPassword")]
public class AdminsEditViewModel
{
public AdminsEditViewModel()
{
this.Admin = new Admin(); // this is an Admin class
}
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> SelectAdminsInGroup { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> SelectAdminsNotInGroup { get; set; }
public Admin Admin { get; set; }
}
I get null exception when on this line of PropertiesMustMatchAttribute
object originalValue = properties.Find(OriginalProperty, true /* ignoreCase */).GetValue(value);
since Password field is a property of Admin class and NOT AdminsEditViewModel. How do I make it so that it will go so many levels deep until it does find property of Admin in the ViewModel AdminsEditViewModel?
thanks
You need to modify the PropertiesMustMatchAttribute class to parse the property name and search deeply.
This attribute is not part of the framework; it's included in the default MVC template (in AccountModels.cs)
You can therefore modify it to suit your needs.
Specifically, you would call name.Split('.'), then loop through splitted names and get the property values.
It would look something like
object GetValue(object obj, string properties) {
foreach(strong prop in properties)
obj = TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(obj)
.Find(prop, ignoreCase: true)
.GetValue(obj);
}
return obj;
}
I just wondered how people were approaching this situation. It's something that seems like a weak point in my usage of MVC with ORMs (NHibernate in this case)...
Say you have a fine-grained and complicated entity in your model. You will likely have an admin page to manage objects of this type. If the entity is complicated, it is unlikely that you will be modifying the whole entity in one form. You still need to pass the relevant properties to the view, and incorporate changes to those properties in the model when the view returns them.
What does anyone do in this situation?
Create a view model which is (or contains) a subset of the entities properties. Pass this to and from the view. In 'edit' action method in controller, get the object from repository, go though all the properies in the ViewModel and apply them to the Model object (model.a = viewmodel.a, modelb = viewmodel.b). This seems the obvious sensible route, but generates a lot of tedious plumbing code. Also this complicates validation a bit.
Something else?
I've looked briefly at automapper - but this doesn't seem to fit the bill exactly, maybe I'm wrong?
Thanks.
This sounds like the perfect scenario for automapper. You create a view model class which contains a subset of the fields or your real model, and you let AutoMapper take care extraccting values from the domain model object into your view model object. What issues are you having with this approach?
Consider this example:
Here is your domain model and your view model
public class Person
{
public string FirstName
{ get; set; }
public string LastName
{ get; set; }
public string HomeNumber
{ get; set; }
public string Address1
{ get; set; }
public string Address2
{ get; set; }
}
public class PersonViewModel
{
public string FirstName
{ get; set; }
public string LastName
{ get; set; }
public string HomeNumber
{ get; set; }
}
Here is your mapping, you have to create a mapping in both directions from dm->vm and vm->dm.
From what I've seen when using Automapper is that if you map from object A to B and B has a property which A doesn't have, it will be reset. So when I create the map I direct it to ignore those missing properties. I'm not a Automapper expert so I may be using it wrong.
Mapping
Mapper.CreateMap<Person, PersonViewModel>();
// Automapper will reset values in dest which don't exist in source, so be sure to ignore them!
Mapper.CreateMap<PersonViewModel, Person>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.HomeNumber, opt => opt.Ignore());
Finally usage:
Person p = new Person()
{
FirstName = "First",
LastName = "Last",
Address1 = "add 1",
Address2 = "add 2"
};
PersonViewModel pvm = Mapper.Map<Person, PersonViewModel>(p);
// Map to a new person
Person p2 = Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, Person>(pvm);
// Map to the existing person just to update it
Person p3 = new Person()
{
HomeNumber = "numberHere"
};
// This will update p3
Mapper.Map<PersonViewModel, Person>(pvm, p3);
Because of the exclusion, this is obviously less than ideal, but much better than manually doing the whole thing.
Have your view model map one-to-one with your domain model.
Specify Model as argument for the routeValues as below. This means your view model will be initialized with the values from the domain model. Only the sub set of fields in the form will be overwritten in the resulting personViewData.
Update View:
#model ViewModel.PersonView
#using (Html.BeginForm("Update", "Profile", Model, FormMethod.Post))
{
...Put your sub set of the PersonView fields here
}
ProfileController:
public ActionResult Update(string userName)
{
Person person = _unitOfWork.Person.Get().Where(p => p.UserName == userName).FirstOrDefault();
PersonView personView = new PersonView();
Mapper.Map(person, personView);
return View(personView);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(PersonView personViewData)
{
Person person = _unitOfWork.Person.Get().Where(p => p.UserName == personViewData.UserName).FirstOrDefault();
Mapper.Map(personViewData, person);
_unitOfWork.Person.Update(person);
_unitOfWork.Save();
return Json(new { saved = true, status = "" });
}
Why don't you use TryUpdateModel with the form collection.
If your view is editing a person
public class Person
{
public string ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}
And your view is only editing first name and last name, you can do this:
public ActionResult Action(FormCollection form)
{
Person personToUpdate = Repository.GetPerson(form["ID"]);
TryUpdateModel<Person>(personToUpdate, form);
Repository.Update(personToUpdate)
return View();
}
That will only update Person with the items that a part of the form collection. If you don't want a field updated, don't submit it with the form.
What if you have full model but each page uses and updates only the required part? Then you update the business model using complete view data at the last page.
I use a similar approach to yours (in my case Entity Framework) with Entity -> ViewModel -> View but only on views with "complex" entities that have either 1:M or M:M relationships. In most cases I took the low road and went for Entity->View when I have a simple entity.
My ViewModel is defined as Entity+supporting properties: SelectList or MultiSelectList and either a string or List<string>. I'll also use a ViewModel for instances where I have properties I need for the view but may not necessarily need in the entity (database).
Http Get controller methods are straightforward ActionResults with return View(repository.FetchNewViewModel()) for Create or repository.FetchModelById(id) for Edit. In both instances I'm initializing my entities before passing them to the view.
Create([Bind(Exclude = "Entity.EntityId")] ViewModel model) and Edit(ViewModel model) are the Http Post controller methods of Create and Edit. My Edit view has a hidden input field for EntityId to pass it back and forth.
By the time the Http Post method has the viewmodel, I lose all Entity.Relation and ViewModel.(Multi)SelectList values. I have to rebuild the object if I want my view to display properly:
`
try
{
var tags = model.TagIds; // List<string> or <int> depending on your Id type
if (model.TagsList == null) // It will be
{
model.TagsList = _repository.FetchSelectedTags(tags); // Build a new SelectList
}
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View(model);
}
_repository.Add(model.Article, tags); // or Save() for Edit
}
catch
{
return View(model); // Generally means something screwed in the repository class
}
return RedirectToAction("Index");
`
There is maybe 30% of my entity base using a ViewModel so I definitely only use it as needed. If you have complex views and model data in most instances you can probably break it down to smaller views.
Right now i´m working on a large project using S#arp Architecture and im also using the approach:
Model -> ViewModel -> Model
I use the ViewModel for the Binding part and Validations, the other approach is to use the Model Directly (with tryUpdateModel / UpdateModel which we used during the prototype develop) but for complex scenarios we end up handling special situation like SelectLists/Checkbox/Projections/HMAC Validations in a little ViewModel anyway and using a lot of Request.Form["key"] =( , the other drawback is handling the errors situations where you want to repopulate the form with the user input, i found it a little more complicated using the Model directly (using a ViewModel we take a lot of advantage of ModelState attempted value, saving us a couple of trips to the DB, anyone who have faced this scenario will know what i mean).
This approach is a bit time consuming, just like you said, you end up matching properties, but in my opinion is the way to go for complex forms.
It worth mentioning that we just use ViewModels for the Create/Edit scenarios, for almost everything else we use directly the model.
I have not use autommapers so far, but definitely i ll give it a try.
Does it make sense create an object that contains only those properties that the user will input on the webpage, use that for binding in the controller, and then map to the full Entity Object? Or should you just use the entity object, and use Include and Exclude to make restrictions on what gets bound on input?
I have come to like the idea of using interfaces to segregate which properties should be included when the object is updated.
For example:
To create and update an person object:
interface ICreatePerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
string Sex { get; set; }
int Age { get; set; }
}
interface IUpdatePerson
{
string Name { get; set; }
}
class Person : ICreatePerson, IUpdatePerson
{
public int Id { get; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Sex { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
Then, when binding model, just use the appropriate interface as the type and it will only update the name property.
Here is an example controller method:
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection)
{
// Get orig person from db
var person = this.personService.Get(id);
try
{
// Update person from web form
UpdateModel<IUpdatePerson>(person);
// Save person to db
this.personService.Update(person);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
catch
{
ModelState.AddModelErrors((person.GetRuleViolations());
return View(person);
}
}
See this article (and the comments) for a very good discussion of the options.
I recommend using a separate presentation model type in most cases. Aside from the issue of binding (which is important, but there are other ways around this issue), I think that there are other reasons why using presentation model types is a good idea:
Presentation Models allow "view-first" development. Create a view and a presentation model at the same time. Get your user representative to give you feedback on the view. Iterate until you're both happy. Finally, solve the problem of mapping this back to the "real" model.
Presentation Models remove dependencies that the "real" model might have, allowing easier unit testing of controllers.
Presentation Models will have the same "shape" as the view itself. So you don't have to write code in the view to deal with navigating into "detail objects" and the like.
Some models cannot be used in an action result. For example, an object graph which contains cycles cannot be serialized to JSON.