Are helpers in MVC3 used in the controller as well as the views?
Is a helper the right place to put commonly used controller methods?
I want to create a common method to get all sub children IDs in a database and make sure it is in the right area. I just want to make sure I am putting my logic in the right area.
Thanks
You could implement a base Controller for that logic. Helpers, or extension methods, are good for when you don't want to change the interface for something.
The HtmlHelper is not available to the controller, because the controller should not be responsible for generating HTML, but the UrlHelper is available within the controller.
A method to get specific data from your database does not belong in your controller, or in a UrlHelper or an HtmlHelper. You should create a separate class for this logic, and then call the method on this class from within your controller. If you are using Dependency Injection, which I suggest, your controller code might look like this:
public class MyController
{
IMyDataUtil _dataUtil;
public MyController(IMyDataUtil dataUtil)
{
_dataUtil = dataUtil;
}
public ActionResult SomeAction(int parentId)
{
var childIds = _dataUtil.GetChildIds(parentId);
...
}
}
As you can see, this allows you to keep the data-access code in a class specifically designed for that purpose. The fact that this controller depends on that utility class is immediately obvious, and doesn't take that much more code than calling an extension method on a helper. Controllers that don't deal with that class's methods won't need to have it available.
On the other hand, if there are methods that are likely to be used by a bunch of different controllers, injecting this same data class into all of them may become cumbersome. In that case, you could:
Extend a base class that has an instance of the data-access class injected into it via method or property injection, and which then exposes it to sub-classes via a protected or public property, or
Create your own helper class that wraps the classes and methods you're likely to use in all your controllers, and inject that class so you only have one dependency for a variety of common functions, or
Combine steps 1 and 2.
If by "helpers" you're referring to things such as HtmlHelper then, no, these aren't used by the controller as in theory you could take your controllers and re-use them with an entirely different rendering engine (for example WPF) as the controller isn't responsible for rendering.
If you're talking about, as I think you are, helper classes/methods that manipulate your data ready for it to be put into a Model by a Controller and then handed off to a View for presentation, then you could consider a "business logic" layer. For example, if you were talking about (the ever typical) Bank Account example, you could have a:
public class BankAccountService
{
public IEnumerable<string> GetAllAccountIdsForCustomer(int customerId)
{
// Talk to the database here and retrieve the account id's for a customer
}
public string GetCustomerName(int customerId)
{
// Talk to the database here and retrieve the customer's name
}
}
Your controller would then:
public ActionResult AccountNumbers(int customerId)
{
var model = new AccountNumbersModel();
model.CustomerId = customerId;
model.AccountNumbers = BankAccountService.GetAllAccountIdsForCustomer(customerId);
return View(model);
}
Obviously in this example you'd need to have a class called AccountNumbersModel defined and you'd also probably want to consider using Dependency Injection to provide an instance of BankAccountService to your controller, but describing how to go about all that is kinda outside the scope of this answer.
The advantages this approach gives you are testability and separation, each piece of code is responsible for one task, and you reduce the complexity of each individual piece and make it easier to make changes without breaking things.
I want to create a common method to get all sub children IDs in a database and make sure it is in the right area. I just want to make sure I am putting my logic in the right area.
That sounds like a job for an ActionFilter.
Related
I'm developing a medium scale application using Symfony2 and Doctrine2. I'm trying to structure my code according to the SOLID principles as much as possible. Now here is the question:
For creating new Entities, I use Symfony Forms with proxy objects i.e: I don't bind the form directly to my Entity, but to some other class that will passed to some service which will take the needed action based on the received data, i.e: the proxy class serves as a DTO to that service which I will call the Handler. Now considering the Handler doesn't have a dependency on the EntityManager, where should I do calls to EntityManager::persist() and EntityManager::flush()? I am usually comfortable with putting flush in the controller but I'm not so sure about persist since the controller shouldn't assume anything about what the Handler does, and maybe Handler::handle (the method that the form data is passed to) does more than just persist a new Entity to the database. One Idea is to create some interfaces to encapsulate flush and persist and pass them around, which will act as wrappers around EntityManager::flush() and EntityManager::persist(), but I'm not so sure about it since EntityManager::flush() might create unwanted consequences. So Maybe I should just create an interface around persist.
So My question is where and how to make the call to persist and flush, in order to get the most Solid code? Or am I just overcomplicating things in my quest of best practices?
If you have a service that will handle tasks upon your entities, to me, the right way is to inject EntityManager into your service definition and do persist and flush operation inside it.
Another way to proceed, if you want to keep separate that logic, is to create an EventSubscriber and raise a custom event from your "entity service" when you're ready to do persist and flush operations
My 2 cents:
about flush, as it calls the DB, doing it like you already do when needed in your controllers sounds good to me.
about presist, it should be called in your Handler when your entity is in a "ready to be flushed" state. A Persister interface with only the persist method as a dependency of your Handlers, and a DoctrinePersister implementation injected in them looks OK.
Another option here - you can implement save() method in your entity repository class and make persistence there. Inject your entity repository as dependency into your Handler class.
If you don't want to couple your service and business logic to the EntityManager (good job), SOLID provides a perfect solution to separate it from your database logic.
//This class is responsible for business logic.
//It knows nothing about databases
abstract class CancelOrder
{
//If you need something from the database in your business logic,
//create a function that returns the object you want.
//This gets implemented in the inherited class
abstract protected function getOrderStatusCancelled();
public function cancel($order)
{
$order->setOrderStatus($this->getOrderStatusCancelled());
$order->setSubmittedTime(new DateTime());
//and other business logic not involving database operations
}
}
//This class is responsible for database logic. You can create a new class for any related CRUD operations.
class CancelOrderManager extends CancelOrder
{
public function __construct($entityManager, $orderStatusRepository)...
public function getOrderStatusCancelled()
{
return $this->orderStatusRepository->findByCode('cancelled');
}
public function cancel($order)
{
parent::cancel($order);
$this->entityManager->flush();
}
}
I have a model class named Server, it contains many navigation properties and properties, which I want to prevent users from binding it. So I find two approaches of doing so to avoid over-posting attacks.
The first approach is to go to each model class and define an Exclude Bind list , with all the properties and navigating properties that should not be bind by users , as follow:-
[MetadataType(typeof(TMSServer_Validation))]
[Bind(Exclude = "Technology,IT360SiteID, VirtualMachines, TMSServer1,DataCenter,OperatingSystem,Rack,ServerModel,TechnologyBackUpStatu,TechnologyRole,TechnologyStatu ")]
public partial class Server {
}
}
The second approach is to create a view model class , with only the properties that can be modified by users as follow:-
public class ServerViewModel
{
public int ServerSize { get; set; }
[Required]
public String OperatingSystem { get; set; }
public String Commnet { get; set; }
}
I find that the first approach is faster to implement , as I only need to define the Exclude list, while the second approach will require me to create view-model class for each of the domain classes. So which approach is recommended to use and why ?
Thanks
Over-posting occurs due to the default model binder not knowing which fields you actually included in the form.
It will try to map all values in the request to object. Attackers can use your form to add additional fields to
query strings/form post data and add properties as part of the request. The default model binder won't
know the difference. Your Server class will deactivate once the mapping is complete and the update is processed.
To prevent over-posting, set the annotation to include fields in the binding, or create a ViewModel like you mentioned in your code.
So which approach is recommended to use and why ?
Both annotation and ViewModel allow binding only on specified fields, but when you use ViewModel you will not bind against business objects or entities, and you will only have properties available for the input you expected.
Once the model is validated, you can then move values from the input model to the object you used in the next layer.
k. Soctt Allen has a good article about which approach is better, you can take a look at by the following link:
http://odetocode.com/blogs/scott/archive/2012/03/11/complete-guide-to-mass-assignment-in-asp-net-mvc.aspx
It's difficult to tell without seeing the rest of your code, but in general I'd say using the ViewModel is probably a better approach for the following reasons:
You separate your view from your business logic
It is safer. If in the future someone adds a property on Server and forgets the Bind-exclude, you're exposed to over-binding without knowing it. If you use the ViewModel-approach you have to explicity add new properties
Maybe this question is a little bit ambiguous because the answers are going to be based on opinions or something. But I'll try to answer it the best I can and indeed is kind of my opinion. So this is the way I see it:
First approach (Bind attribute): Is faster to implement because you only need to add on your class the name of the property you don't want to expose, but the problems comes when you want your class to exclude some properties for one feature and other properties for another feature, and you can't add fields and sometimes in MVC, the views need more fields that the ones provided by the model class and then you're gonna need to use ViewBag or something else. This approach is very handy for fast and smalls projects, but I still don't like to use ViewBag (For aesthetics reasons)
Second approach (ViewModels): Is more work, and more time but at the end (again in my opinion) you get a cleaner and ordered code and you don't need to use the ViewBag, because you can have the perfect object to send to the view depending on what this View needs, so if you a have an object with different views, again depending on the needs, they could share the same ViewModel or they could have a ViewModel for each one. If you have a solution or a big web project, this approach is going to be very handy to keep an ordered code.
Let me know.
Could anyone tell me where is the best place to put my business methods when using EF4 code first POCOs? Should they go in the POCO class? E.g.
public class customer
public property Id as int32
public property Name as string
public property Archived as boolean
public sub MarkAsArchived
me.Archived = true
end sub
public function EmailAllInvoices as boolean
...
end function
end class
Or should the POCO class be as clean as possible and a seperate class be used for business logic which accepts an instance of a customer POCO in the constructor to work on?
Thanks.
#Ladislav Mrnka is right, it depends on your architecture.
How complex are your business rules? Are they likely to change often? What clients will consume your Model, just your own Web Site, or are you exposing API's, OData, etc?
All questions that need to be answered.
Personally, we have simple business rules, and a fairly straightforward architecture.
Therefore, i do all validation in a service layer, and i create partial classes for my POCO's to faciliate the business rules, and throw Custom Exceptions.
E.g
public void Add(Order order)
{
try
{
order.Validate(); // method in Order.cs partial class
repository.Add(order);
}
catch (InvalidOrderOperationException exc) // custom exc
{
// do something
}
}
As i said - depends on your architecture.
If you have very complicated business rules, consider using the Specification pattern.
The "DDD-God" (Martin Fowler) has a good write-up on it here.
That is definitely dependent on "architecture" of your business layer. You can use POCO as data transfer object and have some upper level business layer class which will handle business operations - basically we can talk about Transaction script pattern. Or you can place methods to your POCO objects and "promote" them to Domain objects. Then your business logic will be inside your domain objects and domain services (some business logic functionality is for several domain objects so it should be placed to separate class). This is called Domain driven design (but it suggests much more architecture related ideas).
I'm working on a site and there are two projects in the solution a business logic project and the website project. I understand that I want to keep the entity context out of the web project and only use the business objects the framework creates but I can't figure out how to save a modified object this way.
Let's say my entity model created this class:
public class Person //Person entity
{
Int32 Id {get;set;}
String Name {get;set;}
Address Address {get;set;} //Address entity
}
And I created this class to get a specific person:
public static class PersonController
{
public static Person GetById(int id)
{
using (Entities context = new Entities())
{
return context.Persons.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id == id);
}
}
}
This allows me to get a person without a context by calling PersonController.GetById(1); and I can change the persons properties after I get them but I can't figure out how to save the modified information back to the database. Ideally I would like to partial class Person and add a .Save() method which would handle creating a context adding the person to it and saving the changes. But when I tried this a while ago there were all kinds of issues with it still being attached to the old context and even if I detatch it and attatch it to a new context it gets attached as EntityState.Unchanged, if I remember right, so when I call context.SaveChages() after attaching it nothing actually gets updated.
I guess I have two questions:
1) Am I going about this in a good way/is there a better way? If I'm doing this in a really terrible way I would appreciate some psudo-code to point me in the right direction; a link to a post explaining how to go about this type of thing would work just as well.
2) Can someone provide some psudo-code for a save method? The save method would also need to handle if an address was attached or removed.
There are many ways to handle Entity Framework as a persistence layer.
For one, it looks like you're not using pure POCOs. That is, you let EF generate the classes for your (in the EDMX.designer.cs file).
Nothing wrong with that, but it does inhibit a clean separation of concerns (especially when it comes to unit testing).
Have you considering implementing the Repository pattern to encapsulate your EF logic? This would be a good way to isolate the logic from your UI.
In terms of Save - this is where it gets difficult. You're right, most people use partial classes. Generally, you would have a base class which exposes a virtual "Save" method, which the partial classes can then override.
I personally don't like this pattern - i believe POCOs should not care about persistence, or the underlying infrastructure. Therefore I like to use pure POCOs (no code gen), Repository pattern and Unit of Work.
The Unit of Work handles the context opening/saving/closing for you.
This is how (my) Unit of Work does the magic. Consider this some code in your "Web" project:
var uOw = new UnitOfWork(); // this is class i created, implementing the UOW pattern
var person = repository.Find(10); // find's a "Person" entity (pure POCO), with id 10.
person.Name = "Scott";
uOw.Commit();
Or adding a new Person:
var uOw = new UnitOfWork();
var newPerson = new Person { Name = "Bob" };
repository.Add(newPerson);
uOw.Commit();
How nice is that? :)
Line 1 creates a new sql context for you.
Line 2 uses that same context to retrieve a single "Person" object, which is a hand-coded POCO (not generated by EF).
Line 3 changes the name of the Person (pure POCO setter).
Line 4 Saves the changes to the data context, and closes the context.
Now, there is a LOT more to these patterns than that, so I suggest you read up on these patterns to see if it suits you.
My repository is also implemented with Generics, so I can re-use this interface for all business entity persistence.
Also take a look at some of the other questions I have asked on Stack Overflow - and you can see how I've implemented these patterns.
Not sure if this is the "answer" you're looking for, but thought I'd give you some alternative options.
I'm generating dto classes with a template engine and would like to exclude some properties in an asmx webservice, what, if possible, is the best way to do this?
Ex:
[WebMethod]
public ProductPackages GetPackages()
{
ProductPackages packages = new ProductPackages();
packages.Packages.add(new PackageDTO());
return packages;
}
The PackageDTO contains some properties that's not relevant for this service.
But as the class can be regenerated any time i can't apply [XmlIgnore] to the fields.
So I'm looking for a way to apply a "exclude list" without touching the actual class.
Above is just an example, the template engine generates dto's for all tables in a given project, and I would like to be able to use them in services without needing to maintain a big bunch of nearly identical classes.
Just hit the same problem. You can exclude fields by marking them as internal.
public class Order
{
public double OrderPrice;
internal double ProfitMargin;
internal string TheTruthAboutThisCustomer;
}
If you don't want to return a field or property, then don't have it in the object you return! It's as simple as that.