Default value for ViewModel - asp.net

I'm making a simple Search page in MVC with some filters in it. The filters are represented by properties in my ViewModel. My ViewModel is binded to a GET form in the cshtml so my filter will appears in the querystrings and the user will be able to bookmark his search.
What I want to do is to assign a default value to some of my filters.
My (simplified) ViewModel :
public class SearchViewModel
{
//Filter I want to set a default value to
public OrganizationType? OrganizationType {get; set;}
//Results of the search
public IEnumerable<ItemViewModel> Items {get; set;}
}
I'd like to set a default value for OrganizationType. I can't simply set it in the constructor of SearchViewModel because it depends on the current user :
public void InitViewModel(SearchViewModel vm)
{
vm.OrganizationType = _someLogic.GetDefaultValue(_currentUser);
}
First solution was simply to check if OrganizationType is null, then assign a default value :
public ActionResult Search(SearchViewModel vm)
{
if(vm.OrganizationType == null)
vm.OrganizationType = _someLogic.GetDefaultValue(_currentUser);
return View(vm);
}
But this solution doesn't work as a null value corresponds to an empty filter and it's a choice that the user can make. So I can't override it.
The second solution I tried was to specify that the default value of the controller should be null in the Search action :
public ActionResult Search(SearchViewModel vm = null)
{
if (vm == null)
{
vm = new SearchViewModel();
InitViewModel(vm);
}
...
return View(vm);
}
But in practice, the variable vm is never null, so the default values are never setted.
I also tried having two Action, one wihout a ViewModel where I instanciate a new ViewModel with the default values and then call the second action :
public ActionResult Search()
{
var vm = new SearchViewModel();
InitViewModel(vm);
//Simply call the second action with the initizalied ViewModel
return Search(vm);
}
public ActionResult Search(SearchViewModel vm)
{
...
return View(vm);
}
But it doesn't work because there is now an ambiguity between the two action, and asp.net doesn't know which one to choose.
So in summary, I'd like to find a way to set a default value for a ViewModel, without setting it in the constructor and overriding user choices.
Another way to say it, how can I distinguish an "empty" ViewModel from one where some values are binded from the form.
Any idea ?

Ok I think I found a solution to my own problem...
I can use the ModelState property of the controler to check it the ViewModel is empty or was binded from the form :
public ActionResult Search(SearchViewModel vm = null)
{
if (ModelState.Count == 0)
{
InitViewModel(vm);
}
...
return View(vm);
}
So if ModelState.Count equals to 0 it means that user didn't change any filters. So the form is empty and we can bind our default values. As soon as the user will change one of the filters or submit the request, the ModelState.Count will be greater than 0 so we shouldn't set the default value. Otherwise we would override an user choice.

The logic of what you're doing is a little iffy. Generally speaking, if a value is nullable then null is the default value. However, it seems that you're trying to make a distinction here between whether the value is null because it's not set or null because the user explicitly set it to null. This type of semantic variance is usually a bad idea. If null has a meaning, then it should always carry that meaning. Otherwise, your code becomes more confusing and bugs are generally introduced as a result.
That said, you can't count on ModelState having no items. I've honestly never played around with ModelState enough in scenarios where there's not post data, but it's possible there's some scenario where there's no post data and yet ModelState may have items. Even if there isn't, this is an implementation detail. What if Microsoft does an update that adds items to ModelState in situations where it previously had none. Then, your code breaks with no obvious reason why.
The only thing you can really count on here is whether the request method is GET or POST. In the GET version of your action, you can reasonably assume that the user has made no modifications. Therefore, in this scenario, you can simply set the value to whatever you like without concern.
In the POST version of your action, the user has made some sort of modification. However, at this point, there is no way to distinguish any more whether the value is null because it is or because the user explicitly wanted it to be. Therefore, you must respect the value as-is.

Related

View Model value did not set to #Html.HiddenFor [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Reset the value of textarea after form submission
(9 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have an MVC application that displays a value. This is the controller:
public ActionResult Index(DataSites DataSiteList)
{
if (DataSiteList.Latitude != null)
{
DataSites test = new DataSites();
test.Latitude = "LATITUDE";
return View(test);
}
return View(DataSiteList);
}
public ActionResult SomeInformation()
{
DataSites test1 = new DataSites();
test1.Latitude = "LATITUDE2";
return RedirectToAction("Index", test1);
}
The View:
#model miniproj2.Models.DataSites
<p>
#Html.TextBoxFor(x => x.Latitude)
</p>
And the Model:
public class DataSites
{
public string Latitude { get; set; }
}
When I go to /Home/SomeInformation, the DataSites' Latitude property is set to "LATITUDE2". Then redirects to the Index() action in the controler, sets the property to "LATITUDE" and returns the view.
When it shows the view, it displays the value "LATITUDE2" as set in the redirect. Shouldn't "LATITUDE" be displayed?
Your problem is (step by step)
Your SomeInformation() method sets the value of test1.Latitude
to "LATITUDE2".
You then pass that model to your Index() method using the overload
of RedirectToAction that accepts an object. Internally this uses
reflection to build a RouteValueDictionary based on the properties
of your model (in this case its simply latitude="LATITUDE2").
When you hit the Index method the model is bound by the DefaultModelBinder and now the value of DataSiteList.Latitude is "LATITUDE2" (which is why you enter
the if block)
In the process of binding, the DefaultModelBinder sets the
ModelStatevalue of Latitude to "LATITUDE2". Any attempts to set
the value of Latitude are now ignored because the view uses
ModelState value to render the control.
It not clear what your trying to do here. You can make it work as you expect by adding ModelState.Clear(); as the first line of your Index() method. This clears all existing ModelState values an you can now set the value to "LATITUDE".
But your if block makes no sense. Perhaps you were just doing some kind of test, but you may as well remove the parameter from the Index() method and just initialize a new instance of DataSites in the method.
Edit
To give a bit more information as to why updating a model property has no affect once ModelState has been set.
Imagine you have a form to collect user information where the model contains int Age. The user is asked to enter their age and someone enters "I'm five next week!". Of course this wont bind to an int so the DefaultModelBinder adds the value (the attemptedValue) and adds a ModelStateError.
When the view is returned it will typically display an error message such as "The field Age must be a number". If the html helper rendering the control used the model value, then it would display "0" (the default value for int). It would be somewhat confusing for the user to see "0" in the textbox and next it a message saying it must be a number (What! but zero is a number and what the heck happened to what I entered?). So instead, the helper uses the value from ModelState and now the users sees "I'm five next week!" and an associated error message that makes sense for the value.
So even though you thoughts were that "its not logical", there is actually some logic to this behavior.
You are not setting Altitude. It will be null so the code will never go into this block and set Lattitude to "LATTITUDE"
if (DataSiteList.Altitude != null)
{
DataSites test = new DataSites();
test.Latitude = "LATITUDE";
return View(test);
}

ASP.NET Core: asp-* attributes use request payload over model?

It seems that in ASP.NET Core, the value in asp-* attributes (e.g. asp-for) is taken from the request payload before the model. Example:
Post this value:
MyProperty="User entered value."
To this action:
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Foo(MyModel m)
{
m.MyProperty = "Change it to this!";
return View();
}
OR this action
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Foo(MyModel m)
{
m.MyProperty = "Change it to this!";
return View(m);
}
View renders this:
<input asp-for="MyProperty" />
The value in the form input is User entered value. and not Change it to this!.
First of all, I'm surprised that we don't need to pass the model to the view and it works. Secondly, I'm shocked that the request payload takes precedence over the model that's passed into the view. Anyone know what the rationale is for this design decision? Is there a way to override the user entered value when using asp-for attributes?
I believe this is the expected behavior/by design. Because when you submit the form, the form data will be stored to ModelState dictionary and when razor renders your form elements, it will use the values from the Model state dictionary. That is why you are seeing your form element values even when you are not passing an object of your view model to the View() method.
If you want to update the input values, you need to explcitly clear the Model state dictionary. You can use ModelState.Clear() method to do so.
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Create(YourviewModel model)
{
ModelState.Clear();
model.YourProperty = "New Value";
return View(model);
}
The reason it uses Model state dictionary to render the form element values is to support use cases like, showing the previously submitted values in the form when there is a validation error occurs.
EDIT : I found a link to the official github repo of aspnet mvc where this is confirmed by Eilon (asp.net team member)
https://github.com/aspnet/Mvc/issues/4486#issuecomment-210603605
I can confirm your observation. What's really going to blow your mind is that this:
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Foo (MyModel m)
{
m.MyProperty = "changed";
var result = new MyModel { MyProperty = "changed" };
return View(result);
}
...gives you the same result.
I think you should log a bug: https://github.com/aspnet/mvc/issues
Edit: I now remember this issue from previous encounters myself and concede that it isn't necessarily a bug, but rather an unintended consequence. The reasons for the result of executing this code is not obvious. There likely isn't a non-trivial way to surface a warning about this, but PRG is a good pattern to follow.

asp.net mvc Serverside validation no return data

I'm building a validation form in my application. In that form there are two buttons. One to accept and one to reject. When the user press reject the rejection reason field must be provided. I check this serverside.
I first check what button is pressed and then if the field is empty I add a moddel error to the modelstate. But, because all fields in the form are readonly, those are not posted back to the server and therefor when I return the view back to usern there is no data. I'm probably missing something obvious, but cant find what to do. (I know I can make all fields in my form hidden, but due to the large amount of fields this would be really ugly)
This is my code.
[HttpPost]
public virtual ActionResult Validate(string action, Record dto) {
if(action == Global.Accept) {
ciService.Store(dto);
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Ci");
} else {
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(dto.RejectionReason)) {
ModelState.AddModelError("RejectionReason", "REQUIRED!!!!");
return View("Validate", dto);
}
ciService.Reject(dto);
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Ci");
}
}
You need to recreate the model from the database and then change it to match whatever changes are posted in dto. Then use that combined model in the view.
Instead of passing the DTO back from the browser, I would use a hidden HTML field or a querystring parameter containing the ID that identifies the DTO. Then your POST action method would look something like:
[HttpPost]
public virtual ActionResult Validate(string action, int id)
{
// reload the DTO using the id
// now you have all the data, so just process as you did in your question
if (action == Global.Accept) { ... }
...
}
Your GET method might look something like the following then...
[HttpGet]
public virtual ActionResult Validate(int id)
{
// load the DTO and return it to the view
return View();
}
In this way you have all the data you need within your POST action method to do whatever you need.
You need to have hidden fields corresponding to each property displayed in UI.
e.g.,
#Html.LabelFor(m=>m.MyProperty) - For Display
#Html.Hiddenfor(m=>m.MyProperty) - ToPostback the value to server
If I understand right, the problem is because you don't use input.
To solve your problem insert some input hidden in your form with the value you need to be passed to the controller
#Html.HiddenFor(model => model.Myfield1)
#Html.HiddenFor(model => model.Myfield2)
that should fix the values not passed back to your actions
If you don't need these fields on the server side, simply create a new ViewModel
RecordValidateViewModel and this contains only the fields in it that need to be validated. The model binder will populate then and you will have validation only on the fields in that model rather than all the other fields you don't seem to want there.
If you need them to validate, then post them back to the server. Its not 'ugly' if hidden.

How can i hold the properties of model between the actions(asp.net mvc)

Here's my model:
public class MyModel
{
public int BaseTypeField { set; get; }
public MyType UserTypeField { set; get; }
}
In the first action, i passed a MyModel to the view normally:
public ActionResult Action1()
{
MyModel model = new MyModel();
//do something with model.UserTypeField
return View(model);
}
In Action1View i can easily modify the model.BaseTypeField with HtmlHelper, but I dont wanna modify model.UserTypeField in this view(neither can i store it in HiddenFor).
Then Action1View submit the model to another action:
public ActionResult Action2(MyModel model)
{
//model.UserTypeField is lost here
return View();
}
Here comes the problem: how can i hold/save the model.UserTypeField except for something like Session??
Well, if you don't want to use session state, then your only option is to pass the information to the client and have him pass it back with his request. One way you could do this would be with a cookie. Another might be to use a hidden form field. You would include the field in your response to Action1, and the browser would automatically submit it in the request to Action2 (assuming you're using a form POST to call the action).
You have a number of options to preserve state across controller actions:
Store it in a Hidden input element in the View (though I appreciate that you say you can't, and there are plenty of good reasons why that might be the case).
Store it in Session State.
Store it in your application database (but then, you may as well use Session State).
Store it in a cookie. You can create a HttpCookie and add it to HttpContext.Current.Response.Cookies in Action1 and read it from HttpContext.Current.Request.Cookies in Action2.
If you only have a small amount of data and have no reason to use Session State elsewhere, I'd probably go for the cookie option. But Session State is there for precisely this kind of purpose. Don't be afraid to use it if it's the right thing.
Each action should have a parameter that has only properties for fields which you would like to accept from the request. The rest of the object should be loaded from the data store again. In other words, don't have Action2 take a property that takes in the whole model as it will allow your consumers to inadvertently alter more properties than they should be able to.
This may seem like a lot of work to do on every step, but you will save yourself many headaches by not having to do all of the validation for all the fields which you do not want changed. It is also easy to load the rest of the model from the data store if you wrap it up in a function.
TempData[] is intended to hold items between actions, but it does use the Session. If keys are not marked using Keep, then they are removed once the next Action is executed.
If you wanted to avoid Session fullstop, then you would have to serialize your object and send it to the client in the view (in a hidden form variable for example) and then deserialize it back into Action2.
If you wanted to use TempData (which would be simplest unless you can't use session for some reason), the syntax would just be:
public ActionResult Action1()
{
MyModel model = new MyModel();
//do something with model.UserTypeField
TempData["UserTypeField"] = model.UserTypeField;
return View(model);
}
public ActionResult Action2(MyModel model)
{
model.UserTypeField = TempData["UserTypeField"];
return View();
}

Entity Framework and MVC 3: The relationship could not be changed because one or more of the foreign-key properties is non-nullable

I have been trying to use one View for updating an object and all its child collections (based on one-to-many relationships in an SQL Server database with an Entity Framework model).
It was suggested I should use AutoMapper, and I tried that and got it to work. (see Trying to use AutoMapper for model with child collections, getting null error in Asp.Net MVC 3 ).
But the solution is really hard to maintain. And when I try the simple one I had to begin with, using an entity object directly as the model (a "Consultant" object, the parent of all the child collections), I am able to get all the correct changed data back in the POST, and I can use UpdateModel to get them, including child collections. Simple. Granted, UpdateModel only worked after creating a custom model binder from a tip here at SO:
From my custom model binder:
public override object BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
bindingContext.ModelMetadata.ConvertEmptyStringToNull = false;
return base.BindModel(controllerContext, bindingContext);
}
protected override void SetProperty(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, PropertyDescriptor propertyDescriptor, object value)
{
ModelMetadata propertyMetadata = bindingContext.PropertyMetadata[propertyDescriptor.Name];
propertyMetadata.Model = value;
string modelStateKey = CreateSubPropertyName(bindingContext.ModelName, propertyMetadata.PropertyName);
// Try to set a value into the property unless we know it will fail (read-only
// properties and null values with non-nullable types)
if (!propertyDescriptor.IsReadOnly)
{
try
{
if (value == null)
{
propertyDescriptor.SetValue(bindingContext.Model, value);
}
else
{
Type valueType = value.GetType();
if (valueType.IsGenericType && valueType.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(EntityCollection<>))
{
IListSource ls = (IListSource)propertyDescriptor.GetValue(bindingContext.Model);
IList list = ls.GetList();
foreach (var item in (IEnumerable)value)
{
list.Add(item);
}
}
else
{
propertyDescriptor.SetValue(bindingContext.Model, value);
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Only add if we're not already invalid
if (bindingContext.ModelState.IsValidField(modelStateKey))
{
bindingContext.ModelState.AddModelError(modelStateKey, ex);
}
}
}
}
Here's my simple Edit POST method:
[HttpPost]
[ValidateInput(false)] //To allow HTML in description box
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection)
{
Consultant consultant = _repository.GetConsultant(id);
UpdateModel(consultant);
_repository.Save();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
But after that UpdateModel worked. The problem is, at the next stage, when trying to call SaveChanges on the context, that fails. I'm getting this error:
The operation failed: The relationship
could not be changed because one or
more of the foreign-key properties is
non-nullable. When a change is made to
a relationship, the related
foreign-key property is set to a null
value. If the foreign-key does not
support null values, a new
relationship must be defined, the
foreign-key property must be assigned
another non-null value, or the
unrelated object must be deleted.
I don't understand what is wrong. I'm seeing all the correct values in the Consultant object posted, I just can't save it to database. The route of AutoMapper in this case (although an interesting tool) is not working well, it's complicating my code immensely and making the application, which should be rather simple, a nightmare to maintain.
Can anyone offer any insight into why I'm getting this error and how to overcome it?
UPDATE:
Reading some posts here, I found one that seemed slightly related: How to update model in the database, from asp.net MVC2, using Entity Framework? . I don't know if it relates to this, but when I inspected the Consultant object after POST it seems this object itself has entitykey, but the individual items in a collection do not (EntityKeySet = null). Each item however does have the correct id. I don't pretend to understand any of this with the EntityKey, so please explain if it has any bearings on my issue, and if so, how to resolve it...
UPDATE 2:
I thought of something that might have something to do with my problems: The View is using a technique described by Steven Sanderson (see http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2010/01/28/editing-a-variable-length-list-aspnet-mvc-2-style/ ), and when debugging it seems to me as if UpdateModel has trouble matching the items in a collection in the View with the ones in the actual Consultant object. I'm wondering if this has to do with the indexing in this technique. Here's the helper from that code (I can't follow it very well myself, but it uses a Guid to create indexes, which might be the problem):
public static class HtmlPrefixScopeExtensions
{
private const string idsToReuseKey = "__htmlPrefixScopeExtensions_IdsToReuse_";
public static IDisposable BeginCollectionItem(this HtmlHelper html, string collectionName)
{
var idsToReuse = GetIdsToReuse(html.ViewContext.HttpContext, collectionName);
string itemIndex = idsToReuse.Count > 0 ? idsToReuse.Dequeue() : Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
// autocomplete="off" is needed to work around a very annoying Chrome behaviour whereby it reuses old values after the user clicks "Back", which causes the xyz.index and xyz[...] values to get out of sync.
html.ViewContext.Writer.WriteLine(string.Format("<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"{0}.index\" autocomplete=\"off\" value=\"{1}\" />", collectionName, html.Encode(itemIndex)));
return BeginHtmlFieldPrefixScope(html, string.Format("{0}[{1}]", collectionName, itemIndex));
}
public static IDisposable BeginHtmlFieldPrefixScope(this HtmlHelper html, string htmlFieldPrefix)
{
return new HtmlFieldPrefixScope(html.ViewData.TemplateInfo, htmlFieldPrefix);
}
private static Queue<string> GetIdsToReuse(HttpContextBase httpContext, string collectionName)
{
// We need to use the same sequence of IDs following a server-side validation failure,
// otherwise the framework won't render the validation error messages next to each item.
string key = idsToReuseKey + collectionName;
var queue = (Queue<string>)httpContext.Items[key];
if (queue == null)
{
httpContext.Items[key] = queue = new Queue<string>();
var previouslyUsedIds = httpContext.Request[collectionName + ".index"];
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(previouslyUsedIds))
foreach (string previouslyUsedId in previouslyUsedIds.Split(','))
queue.Enqueue(previouslyUsedId);
}
return queue;
}
private class HtmlFieldPrefixScope : IDisposable
{
private readonly TemplateInfo templateInfo;
private readonly string previousHtmlFieldPrefix;
public HtmlFieldPrefixScope(TemplateInfo templateInfo, string htmlFieldPrefix)
{
this.templateInfo = templateInfo;
previousHtmlFieldPrefix = templateInfo.HtmlFieldPrefix;
templateInfo.HtmlFieldPrefix = htmlFieldPrefix;
}
public void Dispose()
{
templateInfo.HtmlFieldPrefix = previousHtmlFieldPrefix;
}
}
}
But then again, I wouldn't have thought this should be the problem since the hidden input contains the id in the value attribute, and I thought UpdateModel just looked at the name of the field to get Programs (the collection) and Name (the property), and then the value to the the id...? And then again there's seems to be some mismatch during update. Anyway, here's the generated html from FireBug also:
<td>
<input type="hidden" value="1" name="Programs[cabac7d3-855f-45d8-81b8-c31fcaa8bd3d].Id" id="Programs_cabac7d3-855f-45d8-81b8-c31fcaa8bd3d__Id" data-val-required="The Id field is required." data-val-number="The field Id must be a number." data-val="true">
<input type="text" value="Visual Studio" name="Programs[cabac7d3-855f-45d8-81b8-c31fcaa8bd3d].Name" id="Programs_cabac7d3-855f-45d8-81b8-c31fcaa8bd3d__Name">
<span data-valmsg-replace="true" data-valmsg-for="Programs[cabac7d3-855f-45d8-81b8-c31fcaa8bd3d].Name" class="field-validation-valid"></span>
</td>
Anyone know if this is the problem? And if so, how can I work around it to be able to easily update the collections with UpdateModel? (While still being able to add or remove items in the View before POST, which was the purpose of this technique to begin with).
It looks like there is a Parent entity that has a one to many relationship with your Consultant entity. When you change an attribute of the Consultant entity that is used as the ForeignKey for that relationship, Entity Framework sets the relevant field in the Parent entity to null to decouple the relationship. When that field is not nullable you'll get this error. Actually that error definition is surprisingly good, I've seen this problem with far more cryptic errors.
So, I recommend that you check the parent entity in the database, and proceed to a remedy from there (if you can change it to nullable all is well, if it is part of a different constraint -pk or suchlike- you'll have to fiddle with your object models). I'd ask you to post your entity models, but the chunk of text is intimidating as it is.
I think the error you are getting is related to: EF 4: Removing child object from collection does not delete it - why? You have created an orphan somewhere.
Yes it is related to HtmlPrefixScopeExtensions, but only because you are using Mvc Futures model binders.
In global.asax.cs comment out the line
Microsoft.Web.Mvc.ModelBinding.ModelBinderConfig.Initialize();
and retry: it will work ok !
The problem happens because the MVC futures model binder does not handle correctly this case. It converts ok the form data into your model when you submit the form, but it has a problem when filling the ModelState object when you use HtmlPrefixScopeExtensions to generate non incremental ids.
The model itself is correctly created from the form data. The problem lies inside ModelState which contains only the last value of the collection instead of all elements of the collection.
The strongly typed helper method - which renders the list - only select items which are in your Model property list AND in the matching ModelState entry which is converted into a list. So because there is only one item in the matching ModelState entry other list items get deselected.
This method called by the strongly typed helper code:
htmlHelper.GetModelStateValue(fullName, typeof(string[]))
returns only the last element of the list, because ModelState["Programs[cabac7d3-855f-45d8-81b8-c31fcaa8bd3d].List"].Value contains only the last element of the list.
This is a bug (or non supported scenario) in MVC3 Futures extensible model binders.

Resources