There is a page like report constructor. On that page a lot of control elements that should help express relationships between different parts of constructor.
Is it normal to have hidden input field with json that helps keep complex relationships, instead of trying prepare N-inputs that will be posted on server and more difficult to map with model.
Related
I see references to "best practice", but why is it better to use a ViewBag object versus an Application object when accessing static data in the view?
Both are possible. Suppose you want to add an object to every view but not necessarily pass it to view the model (since there may not even be a model for a given view)?
This could be done several ways, like with a global filter, but accessing an application variable is much more convenient.
Both are nasty workarounds that bypass everything that MVC stands for.
In the Model-View-Controller pattern, your Controller prepares a Model containing all values necessary to populate the View, and the View in turn displays the Model properties the way it's intended to.
Any way you use to circumvent that pattern, like ViewBag, Session or Application variables, are anti-patterns that defeat the MVC way - as long as you access those variables directly from the View.
See also Pass data to layout that are common to all pages and Create ViewModel for Navigation: if you need certain values on all pages, consider using a base viewmodel or partial views.
And yes, this discussion borders on pragmatic/purist. If you for example have a menu that's the same for every user, but which is loaded from a database, then sure, go ahead and store it in an Application variable for caching purposes to load it once per AppDomain. But then still use a base ViewModel or Partial to render that menu.
I wouldn't say putting data in a view bag is a best practice. I would say using a view model is a best practice.
Suppose you want to add object to every view but not necessarily pass
it to view the model (since there may not even be a model for a given
view).
Even if you haven't define a view model, conceptually there is a model is you are passing data to the view.
See Why do we use ViewModels?
If the data is on every view, you could create a base view model that every model inherits from that contains the universal data.
you could also create a partial view with its own view model that is then applied to each page.
Normally I design ViewModels taking in consideration the business or functional concepts of the application.
For example, if you are displaying an invoice, the view model should contain all the properties related to invoices that needs to be displayed on that specific view. I wouldn't use ViewBags/ViewData for this purposes.
On the ViewBag I normally put other and "more ancillary" properties like, for example, a boolean for showing/hiding some part of the view, or maybe for some other "not business relevant" properties.
Of course some people could disagree with this and would put everything on the Viewmodels, some others not. This is a decision you must take at the beginning so you can be consistent in the way you design across the application.
So I've found similar questions, but could really use some help! I have an Entity Framework Application with a whole bunch of tables. I've had to add a new table, and I understand that I can get the model to update using the wizard from .edmx file. The problem is that I REALLY don't want to udpate all of the other models. I've added validation for my models as they're being used in forms, regenerating these models will get rid of all that code. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot.
You won't be able to preserve the changes you made to the auto-generated classes as part of the .edmx.
This may not be the answer you want to hear, but your situation is one of many reasons to use different classes for your user submitted data (i.e. web form in your case).
A few other reasons you should separate your models:
Prevent over-posting which could result in bad data or even security issues
Keep your data models clean and simple by avoiding having UI specific properties (e.g. SelectList which is an object to help populate <select> elements, but doesn't need to be part of the database)
I've noticed in ASP.NET MVC, it's commonplace to use model binding and validation annotations in conjunction with business objects that also interact with the database.
Unfortunately, this means that the scope of the request and the validation taking place must always be 1:1 with domain models. At the very least not without having to code a bunch of exceptions.
If I'm looking for a way to do contextual validation in ASP.NET MVC, are there any examples of or is it an accepted practice already to use POCO classes that represent the incoming data?
Let's say I call these "Request Models". An example might be that I create a class called UpdateUserRequestModel. I define only the data that I allow for a user update, then, I have MVC bind the values into this surrogate model. Later in my controller/services, I access the request model's public properties for the values I wish to move over to the user object.
So, the question here is: Is there already any example of this practice in commonly accepted ASP.NET MVC conventions? Does it have a particular name? Failing that, when I wish to do contextual validation, are there any better options than the default model binders and value providers that MVC ships with?
I do it on my apps. I validate actions the user performs, putting validation attributes etc on that view model that represents that action (conveniently models the form in the view and model binds the result on the way back). I even ported the ContosoUniversity app to reflect this style:
https://github.com/jbogard/ContosoUniversity
I have MVC 3 web app where I get record(s) from DB which is used to render page elements and populate different partial views.
I have classes that represent these DB objects (service layer).
I have also separate set of classes which holds models get returned by the controllers to the view(s).
In my controller, I query DB that returns object to represent DB record.
Then I transfer (MAP) that DB Object to object that Represent the model used by the view(s)
These classes are big and I have to write lots of code in the controller to map.
In most cases I only have some properties which are different.
It seems lots of extra work to do this mapping & lots of code to do the mapping
That is why I am asking.
Is this the correct design approach of developing in MVC framework?
If no, then do you have some pointers that outline the best practice on this aspect.
The Model or ViewModel should only contain information that is used by the View. In some cases, this can be almost identical to what the objects you get from the database are,but this is not always the case. Keeping these concerns separate is good for a number of reasons beyond the scope of a stackoverflow answer. On a side note, I hope you have a separate data access layer and am not querying the database , entity framework or service directly from the controller, again, just to keep those concerns separate.
You can use AutoMapper to map between your DB objects and view models automatically.
Example:
SomeViewModel model = Mapper.Map<SomeViewModel>(someDbObj);
Getting started guide.
Is it possible to call multiple stored procedures (not multiple result sets from a procedure) and display results on a single page in ASP.NET MVC 3 application?
From what I understand only one Model can created on any single page and my stored procedure is already tied to that Model. I would like to call another procedure and display that result as well on my page
I think the root problem is to understand the meaning of the Model in the MVC pattern.
First of all,
The model consists of application data and business rules, and the controller mediates input, converting it to commands for the model or view.[3] A view can be any output representation of data, such as a chart or a diagram
source
In ASP.Net MVC you link a model to your view, this model should not be part of your domain logic or any domain object
The real model (using the meaning of the MVC pattern) is represented by your domain objects.
So what should you put inside the object that you link to your view??
These objects should contain a representation of the view, in other words simple DTO's containing only the data that is going to be used in the view and nothing more. These models should represent the data being used in the view. If you follow this approach, and you need to display more data in the page, you only need to add another property to this model and voila, you can use it from your view.
In a CQRS architecture, these DTO's should be populated by the Query repositories.
If you do not have a CQRS architecture, just populate these objects in your domain, repositories, etc. Do not do it inside the controller, keep your controllers clean and simple, by making calls to your real domain using services or repositories
Try to avoid the reuse of these DTO's, they should belong to one view only. And do yourself a favor and do not try to reuse a domain object instead of a DTO just to use it as the model.
Following this approach your view-models will be clean, since they will be only DTO's and only containing the data needed by the view. And you can fill these DTO's from different sources, even from different databases if you want.
When you want to perform an action you would read from the model the data provided by the user, and with this data you would call your domain through repositories, services or in a CQRS arc. using commands
The simple answer to your question is "yes".
I suggest you do some more research (ie reading articles and looking at sample apps) into MVC and concentrate on understanding these points:
The Model is a class used to group the data you want to display in the View. It can be populated by a variety of methods and does not have to be the domain object or the pure representation of the database result.
A "page" (the concept of what a user sees in their browser window) can be made up from one or more Views. Each View can be responsible for displaying one type of Model allowing for reuse, but a "page" can have multiple Views.
Models are not "tied" to stored procedures. Perhaps you are using an ORM tool that returns a DTO class (which you call model)? This doesn't have to be the Model used by the View. The Controller could compose several of these DTO classes into one Model class.
N-tier application design where database access is separated from the display logic. MVC tries to encourage this but it still has to be done correctly to avoid tying yourself in knots.
Good luck!