I'm a newbie to Symfony and I'm trying to switch my current project over to it.
For most of my controllers I need to do some multiple checks BEFORE executing the controller. Then if certain conditions are met for the check, forward them and show a different view, otherwise continue on to what they requested.
For example I have a group of controllers which should only be executed if the user is in a crew otherwise it loads a view saying "you're not in a crew".
This is very straight forward in procedural code, yet in OOP seems to get more complex, and now within a framework I seem to find myself even more limited.
How does one add logic before the controller is executed?
You want to set up before-filter logic. It's not something simple enough to write into a post here, but here's a good tutorial on doing so. If you have a specific issue with it, post here and I'll try to update with help: http://symfony.com/doc/2.0/cookbook/event_dispatcher/before_after_filters.html
Related
Relatively new convert to Symfony2 from ZF1.
I have Googled and cannot seem to find the answer. Just wondering if there is a way to not render a view from a controller action in Symfony2.
In a ZF controller I could use:
$this->_helper->viewRenderer->setNoRender(true);
What is the equivalent in Symfony2?
In Symfony nothing is rendered for you automatically. If you need to render something, you have to do it explicitly. If you don't want to render, just don't do it :) Simply return a response:
return new Response();
Only job of a Symfony controller is to return a response. Rendering a template actually creates a response as well.
Wanted to give my Opinion:
Just because there is a possibility to render(ControllerMethod,{ params}) in a template doesn't mean you have to use it.
Doing so leads almost always to a shitty architecture, the turning point where projects start to be hard to debug, since you are mixing a VIEW (Presentation layer) with a CONTROLLER, that in turn renders another VIEW. You get the point.
Then when you have an error in the ControllerMethod, and instead you get a template error, not so nice isn't it ?
I vouch for strong architecture in software projects. This cheap solutions, like using this commodities, lead to the start of the bad. And I suggest to avoid it as much as you can unless there is no other possible way. And certainly there is!
That is the reason to use MVC. To separate Code from Presentation layer, start mixing both, and your architecture will leak.
I'm trying to add some functionality to the default MvcHandler. What's happening is: I wanted to have dashed url's instead of Pascal Case url's. In other words if my controller is SomeController I wanted the URL to be /some-controller instead of /SomeController.
My best workaround was: I've created one mapping file URLMappings.xml which maps each controller to each desired URL. Then I've extended the default Route class to generate outgoing url's based on this and the default RouteHandler to understand the url's based on this. Well, this works fine because even if some mapping wasn't created then the framework will use the default behavior.
My point is: with this the routing system was understanding both kinds of Url's and this leads to duplicate content SEO problem. I wanted then to implement the following:
Get the controller value
See if on some mapping the controller name matches the value
If it matches, then there's some preferable URL than the one that was typed, should return 404.
I've searched on the web and the only way I've found to do this was to create a new IHttpHandler. However I don't want one from scratch, since I need all MVC functionality. I just want to put this logic on the ProcessRequest, however my overidden version of the method is not being executed.
Can someone give me some idea on how to deal with this ? Sorry if the question is silly or if it's not well detailed. If there's need for more information, just tell me.
You don't need a custom MvcHandler but a custom Route. There's a already NuGet package for this functionality called LowercaseRoutesMVC. Feel free to download it, explore the source code and adapt if necessary (to put the dash wherever you want to put it).
I am designing a system that uses asp.net webapi to serve data that is used by a number of jquery grid controls. The grids call back for the data after the page has loaded. I have a User table and a Project table. In between these is a Membership table that stores the many to many relationships.
User
userID
Username
Email
Project
projectID
name
code
Membership
membershipID
projectID
userID
My question is what is best way to describe this data and relationships as a webapi?
I have the following routes
GET: user // gets all users
GET: user/{id} // gets a single user
GET: project
GET: project/{id}
I think one way to do it would be to have:
GET: user/{id}/projects // gets all the projects for a given user
GET: project/{id}/users // gets all the users for a given project
I'm not sure what the configuration of the routes and the controllers should look like for this, or even if this is the correct way to do it.
Modern standard for that is a very simple approach called REST Just read carefully and implement it.
Like Ph0en1x said, REST is the new trend for web services. It looks like you're on the right track already with some of your proposed routes. I've been doing some REST design at my job and here are some things to think about:
Be consistent with your routes. You're already doing that, but watch out for when/if another developer starts writing routes. A user wants consistent routes for using your API.
Keep it simple. A major goal should be discoverability. What I mean is that if I'm a regular user of your system, and I know there are users and projects and maybe another entity called "goal" ... I want to guess at /goal and get a list of goals. That makes a user very happy. The less they have to reference the documentation, the better.
Avoid appending a ton of junk to the query string. We suffer from this currently at my job. Once the API gets some traction, users might want more fine grained control. Be careful not to turn the URL into something messy. Something like /user?sort=asc&limit=5&filter=...&projectid=...
Keep the URL nice and simple. Again I love this in a well design API. I can easily remember something like http://api.twitter.com. Something like http://www.mylongdomainnamethatishardtospell.com/api/v1/api/user_entity/user ... is much harder to remember and is frustrating.
Just because a REST API is on the web doesn't mean it's all that different than a normal method in client side only code. I've read arguments that any method should have no more than 3 parameters. This idea is similar to (3). If you find yourself wanting to expand, consider adding more methods/routes, not more parameters.
I know what I want in a REST API these days and that is intuition, discoverability, simplicity and to avoid having to constantly dig through complex documentation.
I am trying to determine the best way to implement the retrieval of detail records based upon the master's ID.
Obviously you would set up API controllers for both master and detail.
Solutions I've considered:
Have API consumers use OData to get all details filtered by a master ID. While I don't have an issue with this solution, I kinda feel bad putting that onto the API consumer and feel it is something that should be handled internally by the API
Go against the convention of just having the Get/Put/Post/Delete methods and create an action of "GetMastersDetails" on the detail controller and make it accessible via routing. While this would certainly work, I feel this gets away from the whole point of Web API (to an extent).
Create a 3rd controller named "MastersDetailsController" which would have a Get based upon a master ID with different possible return types:
Which would return a list of detail IDs which would then be used to call a Get on the details controller to get those actual details
Which would return a list of actual detail objects. What I don't like about that is having a controller returning a different type than what it is based upon.
Option 2 will be fine. Option 1 opens up a lot more risk depending on your scenario, and what you want to allow the user to get at.
It's not really "against convention" to add custom methods to an ApiController. You can do that however you like. It would only be "against convention" if you did so and used the wrong HTTP methods (i.e. a GET when you're deleting something in your custom method).
I'd go with either #1 or #2.
For #1, OData support enables not only the scenario you describe but offers a lot of additional functionality which might be desired in the future.
For #2, I don't think it gets away from the point of Web API's. Maybe a bit from a true RESTful service, but it's easy to implement and easy to understand.
I keep hearing about the DRY Principle and how it is so important in ASP.NET MVC, but when I do research on Google I don't seem to quite understand exactly how it applies to MVC.
From what I've read its not really the copy & paste code smell, which I thought it was, but it is more than that.
Can any of you give some insight into how I might use the DRY Principle in my ASP.NET MVC application?
DRY just means "Don't Repeat Yourself". Make sure that when you write code, you only write it one time. If you find yourself writing similar functionality in all of your Controller classes, make a base controller class that has the functionality and then inherit from it, or move the functionality into another class and call it from there instead of repeating it in all the controllers.
use filter attributes to manage aspects (authentication, navigation, breadcrumbs, etc)
use a layer supertype controller (apply common controller-level filters to it, see mvccontrib for an example)
write custom actionresults (like in mvccontrib - for example we made one called logoutresult that just does a FormsAuthentication.Logout()
use a convention for view names
most importantly - keep you controller actions dumb, look for reuse opportunities in services
Don't Repeat Yourself. It can apply to many different aspects of programming. The most basic level of this is prevent code smell. I haven't used ASP.NET so I can't get specific to it and MVC's.
In C++ Templating prevets multiple copies of the same function.
In C void * pointers can be used in a similar fashion, but with great care.
Inheriting from another function allows function allows other functions to use the same code base without having to copy the code.
Normalizing data in a database minimizes redundant data. Also adhereing to the DRY principle.
When you go over a "thought" in a project. Ask yourself.
Have I already wrote this code?
Will this code be useful elsewhere.
Can I save coding by building off of a previous class/function.
DRY is not specific to any one technology. Just make sure you look at your classes from a functionality standpoint (not even from a copy/paste coder view) and see where the duplication occurs. This process will probably not happen in one sitting, and you will only notice duplication after reviewing your code several months later when adding a new feature. If you have unit tests, you should have no fear in removing that duplication.
One advantage of MVC as related to not repeating yourself is that your controller can do tasks common to all pages in the one class. For example, validating against certain types of malicious requests or validating authentication can be centralized.
DRY should not only be applied to code, but to information in general. Are you repeating things in your build system? Do you have data which should be moved to a common configuration file, etc.
Well, the most common example that I can give about DRY and UI is using things like MasterPages and UserControls.
MasterPages ensure that you have written all the static HTML only once.
UserControls ensure reusability of code. Example, you will have a lot of forms doing basic stuff like CRUD. Now, ideally we want all users to see different pages for Create and Update though the forms fields in both will almost be the same. What we can do is combine all the common controls and put them into a control that can be reused over both the pages. This ensures that we are never retyping (or copy-pasting) the same code.
DRY is especially important in MVC because of the increase in the sheer number of files to accomplish the same task.
There seems to be a misconception that everything in a domain model has to be copied up as a special view model. You can have domain models be domain models but view models be something that know nothing of domain specifics and be more generic. For example:
Domain Model classes: Account, Asset, PurchaseOrder
View Model: List, Table, Tuple, SearchFormBackingModel:Checked options, Outputoptions, etc. The view itself might be much more view implementation specific.
The Tuple/Dictonary/Map might map to Account, Asset and PurchaseOrder single instances but a Table might be useful for a collection of them etc. You still have MVC but you have session data, not ready for transaction yet in a view model without necessarily having it violate the rules of your domain model which is where the rules should go. They will be less anemic and anti-pattern that way. You can pass these rules up front and use them there or just in back or both depending on how the system reads from clients etc.