just noticed that 4.2.30 release does not include
protected bool Set<T>(
ref T field,
T newValue,
[CallerMemberName] string propertyName = null)
{
return Set(propertyName, ref field, newValue);
}
Due to compilation constant "CMNATTR" not defined as BUILD argument in release Mode.
Any ideas if it is by mistake or on purpose?
Thank you.
I just stumbled over this today and would also like to use the [CallerMemberName] with some of the methods MVVMLight provides. Laurent gave an answer earlier on this issue, but it seems that he hasn't has the time yet to fix this. So one option is to download the source, set the symbol and rebuild in release mode. I haven't tried this myself, and I am not sure whether this will have other implications.
Another workaround for now, would be to extend the ViewModelBase and just add the variants of the methods you need, with the [CallerMemberName]. Eg. in your case:
public class ViewModelBaseCustom : ViewModelBase
{
public bool Set<T>(ref T field, T value, [CallerMemberName] string propertyName = "")
{
return this.Set(propertyName, ref field, value);
}
}
and then use this custom version of Laurent's original until MVVMLight has been updated.
Related
I have a ICollection of Projects in my user class
public ICollection<Project> Projects { get; set; }
When I try to render the count of projects in my view, it gives an error
<h2>You have #Model.Projects.Count() projects....</h2>
Any help appreciated.
ICollection doesn't have a Count method, it has a Count property. You are probably getting confused with the LINQ Count extension method which is supported on an IEnumerable interface.
Just remove the parenthesis at the end of the Count call i.e.
<h2>You have #Model.Projects.Count projects...</h2>
I think I figured out what the issue was here. I added a constructor in my user class to handle the null reference exception
public User()
{
this.Roles = new List<Role>();
this.Projects = new List<Project>();
}
This did the trick.
And ofcourse I called count without the paranthesis
In general, I've found it useful to write default constructors of every type, so that when stepping through a project like this I can visually see when each one is called. Not having a copy constructor or something similar can mask odd issues like this and make debugging infinitely frustrating.
My database has a field that is not nullable, but can contain an empty string. When I try to save the record using connection.SaveChanges(), I get an exception saying "The MyField field is required."
I have created a BuddyClass as follows, but I still get the message:
namespace MyNamespace {
[MetadataType(typeof(QuesT_Metadata))] public partial class QuesT { }
public class QuesT_Metadata {
[Required(AllowEmptyStrings = true)
public string MyField { get; set; }
}
}
I can use the ErrorMessage attribute to change the message in the error that is thrown, so I know the Buddy Class is working properly, but apparently the Required attribute is not.
I also tried including attribute DisplayFormat(ConvertEmptyStringToNull = false), but got the same result.
I have done this before, and also the first reference below seems to say it should work, so I'm stumped. Can anyone help?
References (Only the first two seem directly relevant, but the others may still be helpful):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.dataannotations.requiredattribute.allowemptystrings.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.dataannotations.displayformatattribute.convertemptystringtonull.aspx
How to make an Entity Framework property NOT NULL, but not required in form submission
Data annotation attributes not working using buddy class metadata in an MVC app
Data validation with custom attributes (AttributeTargets.Class) on EF buddy classes
I'm in the same boat here... I've got several instances of your exact behavior which are working just fine....
and now, one particular field won't behave...
But, if I leave off the "Required(AllowEmptyStrings = true)" attribute, things go back to working just fine. Which, I guess is what I'm really looking for, as the attribute in question doesn't really make all that much sense (Required, but allow the user not to answer).....
For me the bigger question is why it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't ?
But at a miminum, deleting the one like of code should solve the problem for you.
I have worked around this by trapping the error:
public static class ExtensionMethods {
public static void SaveChangesWithEmptyStrings(this DbContext context) {
try {
context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (DbEntityValidationException ex) {
foreach (DbEntityValidationResult result in ex.EntityValidationErrors)
foreach (DbValidationError error in result.ValidationErrors) {
Type t = result.Entry.Entity.GetType();
PropertyInfo pi = t.GetProperty(error.PropertyName);
pi.SetValue(result.Entry.Entity, "");
}
context.SaveChanges(); // Try again
}
}
}
I am working on a Silverlight application using V3 SP1 of MVVM Light Toolkit.
My application is fully French/English. All UI elements (buttons, labels, etc.) and all the data (models). I need dynamic language switching and this is fully implemented and works with anything coming from a resource file. What I am struggling with is the ViewModels.
The Models have language specific prperties (DescriptionEn, DescriptionFr) and an additional property call LocalizedDescription which uses the current culture to return call the language specific property.
When the language changes (via a button click) I raise and broadcast (via the Messenger) a property changed event.
In each of my ViewModels, I register to receive the property changed message for the language swap.
I want to notify all the properties of the ViewModel that something has changed.
From: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.inotifypropertychanged.propertychanged.aspx
The PropertyChanged event can indicate all properties on the object have changed by using either null or String.Empty as the property name in the PropertyChangedEventArgs.
However, since the toolkit abstracts the raising of the changed event with RaisePropertyChanged(...) I cannot get this to work. I have also examined the source of the tookit and discovered that RaisePropertyChanged calls VerifyPropertyName(..) which in turn returns an error is the property does not belong to the ViewModel. I also noticed that the VerifyPropertyName method is attributed with Conditional("DEBUG"), but even if I choose the Release configuration, the ArgumentException("Property not found") is still raised.
Does anyone know of a way to get this to work using the toolkit aside from manually calling RaisePropertyChanged for every property of the ViewModel?
Follow-up:
Based on the comment from Simon, I attempted to create my own class that extends ViewModelBase. I looked at the source on CodePlex and decided to create a single method called RaiseAllPropertyChanged(). It would simply be a copy of the RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName) but without the parameter and without the call to VerifyPropertyName(...). I cannot get it to work. Here is what I have.
public class ViewModelBaseExtended : ViewModelBase
{
protected void RaiseAllPropertyChanged()
{
var handler = this.PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(String.Empty));
}
}
}
But I get a compiler error: The event 'GalaSoft.MvvmLight.ViewModelBase.PropertyChanged' can only appear on the left hand side of += or -=. This is a copy of the code that is used in the ViewModelBase.
Can someone offer some advice as to how to get this to work?
Solution:
I copied all the code from ViewModelBase into a new class. I then added the method RaisePropertyChanged() mentioned above which instantiates the PropertyChangedEventArgs class with String.Empty. This is now the new subclass for my ViewModels.
Thanks again to Simon for leading the way!
In case you're reading this in 2016, you can use ObservableObject and notify that all of the properties have changed by doing:
RaisePropertyChanged(string.Empty);
Unfortunately this is not possible with the current code-base of MVVMLight
In the short term your have 2 options:
User your own custom base class. And by custom base class I mean "Do not inherit from the MVVMLight class".
Download and compile MVVMLight in Release mode. This will force the "VerifyPropertyName" method to be excluded. Of course then you don't get the value of property name checks.
I am sure Laurent Bugnion will have this fixed soon.
A lighter solution to this problem would have been to override RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName) in your class :
protected override void RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
if (propertyName != null)
{
base.RaisePropertyChanged(propertyName);
}
else
{
var handler = PropertyChangedHandler;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(null));
}
}
}
I refer to this site link text
Using the wrong event name in the
[Bindable] tag can cause your
application to not bind your property,
and you will not even know why. When
you use the [Bindable] tag with a
custom name, the example below looks
like a good idea:
public static const EVENT_CHANGED_CONST:String = "eventChangedConst";
private var _number:Number = 0;
[Bindable(event=EVENT_CHANGED_CONST)]
public function get number():Number
{
return _number;
}
public function set number(value:Number) : void
{
_number = value;
dispatchEvent(new Event(EVENT_CHANGED_CONST));
}
The code above assigns a static
property to the event name, and then
uses the same assignment to dispatch
the event. However, when the value
changes, the binding does not appear
to work. The reason is that the event
name will be EVENT_CHANGED_CONST and
not the value of the variable.
The code should have been written as
follows:
public static const EVENT_CHANGED_CONST:String = "eventChangedConst";
private var _number:Number = 0;
[Bindable(event="eventChangedConst")]
public function get number():Number
{
return _number;
}
public function set number(value:Number) : void
{
_number = value;
dispatchEvent(new Event(EVENT_CHANGED_CONST));
}
I agree, the wrong example does look like a good idea and I would do it that way because I think it's the right way and avoids the possibility of a typing error. Why is the name of the constant used instead of it's value? Surely this can't be right?
I appreciate your insights
Because the standard Flex compiler isn't that clever at times... and I feel your pain! I've complained about this exact problem more than a few times.
If I remember correctly, it's because the compiler does multiple passes. One of the early passes changes the Metadata into AS code. At this point in the compiler it hasn't parsed the rest of the AS code, so its not capable of parsing Constants or references to static variables in other files.
The only thing I can suggest is sign up to the Adobe JIRA, vote for the bug, and hope that the compiler fixes in 4.5 bring some relief.
Pardon me if this question has already been asked. HttpContext.Current.Session["key"] returns an object and we would have to cast it to that particular Type before we could use it. I was looking at various implementations of typed sessions
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/typedsessionstate.aspx
http://weblogs.asp.net/cstewart/archive/2008/01/09/strongly-typed-session-in-asp-net.aspx
http://geekswithblogs.net/dlussier/archive/2007/12/24/117961.aspx
and I felt that we needed to add some more code (correct me if I was wrong) to the SessionManager if we wanted to add a new Type of object into session, either as a method or as a separate wrapper. I thought we could use generics
public static class SessionManager<T> where T:class
{
public void SetSession(string key,object objToStore)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = objToStore;
}
public T GetSession(string key)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[key] as T;
}
}
Is there any inherent advantage in
using
SessionManager<ClassType>.GetSession("sessionString")
than using
HttpContext.Current.Session["sessionString"] as ClassType
I was also thinking it would be nice
to have something like
SessionManager["sessionString"] = objToStoreInSession,
but found that a static class cannot have an indexer. Is there any other way to achieve this ?
My thought was create a SessionObject which would store the Type and the object, then add this object to Session (using a SessionManager), with the key. When retrieving, cast all objects to SessionObject ,get the type (say t) and the Object (say obj) and cast obj as t and return it.
public class SessionObject { public Type type {get;set;} public Object obj{get;set;} }
this would not work as well (as the return signature would be the same, but the return types will be different).
Is there any other elegant way of saving/retrieving objects in session in a more type safe way
For a very clean, maintainable, and slick way of dealing with Session, look at this post. You'll be surprised how simple it can be.
A downside of the technique is that consuming code needs to be aware of what keys to use for storage and retrieval. This can be error prone, as the key needs to be exactly correct, or else you risk storing in the wrong place, or getting a null value back.
I actually use the strong-typed variation, since I know what I need to have in the session, and can thus set up the wrapping class to suit. I've rather have the extra code in the session class, and not have to worry about the key strings anywhere else.
You can simply use a singleton pattern for your session object. That way you can model your entire session from a single composite structure object. This post refers to what I'm talking about and discusses the Session object as a weakly typed object: http://allthingscs.blogspot.com/2011/03/documenting-software-architectural.html
Actually, if you were looking to type objects, place the type at the method level like:
public T GetValue<T>(string sessionKey)
{
}
Class level is more if you have the same object in session, but session can expand to multiple types. I don't know that I would worry about controlling the session; I would just let it do what it's done for a while, and simply provide a means to extract and save information in a more strongly-typed fashion (at least to the consumer).
Yes, indexes wouldn't work; you could create it as an instance instead, and make it static by:
public class SessionManager
{
private static SessionManager _instance = null;
public static SessionManager Create()
{
if (_instance != null)
return _instance;
//Should use a lock when creating the instance
//create object for _instance
return _instance;
}
public object this[string key] { get { .. } }
}
And so this is the static factory implementation, but it also maintains a single point of contact via a static reference to the session manager class internally. Each method in sessionmanager could wrap the existing ASP.NET session, or use your own internal storage.
I posted a solution on the StackOverflow question is it a good idea to create an enum for the key names of session values?
I think it is really slick and contains very little code to make it happen. It needs .NET 4.5 to be the slickest, but is still possible with older versions.
It allows:
int myInt = SessionVars.MyInt;
SessionVars.MyInt = 3;
to work exactly like:
int myInt = (int)Session["MyInt"];
Session["MyInt"] = 3;