(sorry for my bad english)
In a Silverlight 4 + RIA Services + EF4 Code Only application I have some classes on my DbContext that contain a "IsActive" field - I want to know from the client if a entity have this field and get it. My first thought was to use a interface:
public interface IHasActiveField
{
bool IsActive {get; set;}
}
public class Data: IHasActiveField
{
public bool IsActive {get; set;}
}
This work fine on the server but on the client, the RIA generated code do not have any reference to my interface, so I cannot test if (obj is IHasActiveField) - the same happens if I try to inherit from a base class with the IsActive field, on the client side, the class Data always inherit from Entity - I probably could use reflection to see if the field exists or just test for every type (if (obj is Data)) but if a more elegant way is possible, it would be way better :)
The following blog sounds like what you want.
"All you have to do is use a partial class for your model, and name the file with .shared.cs (or .shared.vb). This file will automatically be copied to the Silverlight project, so whatever is in it will be retained on the client. So with all of the interface implementation in that file, you’re done."
http://jeffhandley.com/archive/2009/03/30/ria-services-custom-interfaces.aspx
Related
I have an ASP.NET MVC3 application that uses entities generated from a database. Each entity has also has a separate partial class that uses the MetadataType attribute to associate each entity with a class that is decorated with a number of validation attributes (see below).
[MetadataType(typeof(Drawing.Metadata))]
public partial class Drawing
{
private sealed class Metadata
{
[Required]
[StringLength(50, MinimumLength = 3, ErrorMessage = "Drawing numbers must be between {2} and {1} characters in length.")]
[DisplayName("Drawing number")]
public string Number { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(255, MinimumLength = 3, ErrorMessage = "Drawing titles must be between {2} and {1} characters in length.")]
public string Title { get; set; }
}
}
My controller code looks like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Drawing drawing)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
// Save to database here...
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
else
{
return View(drawing);
}
}
I have used the Visual Studio templates to create the views to add, edit and delete the entities (The designer code has not been altered).
The problem I am having is that when I create an entity, validation only works if I have client side validation enabled. If I turn off the client side validation then ModelState.IsValid always seems to return true and returns me to the index page.
Can anyone provide any suggestions on how to get server side validation working with Entity Framework entities?
UPDATE:
It seems this question is similar to mine. The author of this post seems to have solved the problem but rather unhelpfully omitted to mention how they fixed the problem...
I found another solution to this problem. Because I didn't really want to set my properties to nullable I added the following:
[DisplayFormat(ConvertEmptyStringToNull = false)]
Adding the following annotation to your model property fixes the error as well.
After further investigation it seems that my problem is occuring due to a ConstraintException being thrown by my entity class (which inherits from ObjectContext) when the default model binder tries to bind the user input values (Null in this case) to the entity properties.
I can see 2 possible solutions to this:
Relax the constraints on my database tables (I don't want to do this).
Make the entity fields nullable (use the entity designer set the nullable property to yes)
I have used and tested the second option and can confirm that server side validation now works as expected.
Whilst researching solutions to this problem I have come to the conclusion that the problem is due to my entities inheriting from ObjectContext which is quite a heavy class. I found a lot of tutorials which used a code-first approach. In this case, the entity class will inherit from DbContext which is much more lightweight so I guess this could be considered a third solution to the problem.
I have a web solution (in VS2010) with two sub-projects:
Domain which holds the Model classes (mapped to database tables via Entity Framework) and Services which (besides other stuff) are responsible for CRUD operations
WebUI which references the Domain project
For the first pages I've created I have used the Model classes from the Domain project directly as Model in my strongly typed Views because the classes were small and I wanted to display and modify all properties.
Now I have a page which should only work with a small part of all properties of the corresponding Domain Model. I retrieve those properties by using a projection of the query result in my Service class. But I need to project into a type - and here come my questions about the solutions I can think of:
I introduce ViewModels which live in the WebUI project and expose IQueryables and the EF data context from the service to the WebUI project. Then I could directly project into those ViewModels.
If I don't want to expose IQueryables and the EF data context I put the ViewModel classes in the Domain project, then I can return the ViewModels directly as result of the queries and projections from the Service classes.
In addition to the ViewModels in the WebUI project I introduce Data transfer objects which move the data from the queries in the Service classes to the ViewModels.
Solution 1 and 2 look like the same amount of work and I am inclined to prefer solution 2 to keep all the database concerns in a separate project. But somehow it sounds wrong to have View-Models in the Domain project.
Solution 3 sounds like a lot more work since I have more classes to create and to care about the Model-DTO-ViewModel mapping. I also don't understand what would be the difference between the DTOs and the ViewModels. Aren't the ViewModels exactly the collection of the selected properties of my Model class which I want to display? Wouldn't they contain the same members as the DTOs? Why would I want to differentiate between ViewModels and DTO?
Which of these three solutions is preferable and what are the benefits and downsides? Are there other options?
Thank you for feedback in advance!
Edit (because I had perhaps a too long wall of text and have been asked for code)
Example: I have a Customer Entity ...
public class Customer
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public City { get; set; }
// ... and many more properties
}
... and want to create a View which only shows (and perhaps allows to edit) the Name of customers in a list. In a Service class I extract the data I need for the View via a projection:
public class CustomerService
{
public List<SomeClass1> GetCustomerNameList()
{
using (var dbContext = new MyDbContext())
{
return dbContext.Customers
.Select(c => new SomeClass1
{
ID = c.ID,
Name = c.Name
})
.ToList();
}
}
}
Then there is a CustomerController with an action method. How should this look like?
Either this way (a) ...
public ActionResult Index()
{
List<SomeClass1> list = _service.GetCustomerNameList();
return View(list);
}
... or better this way (b):
public ActionResult Index()
{
List<SomeClass1> list = _service.GetCustomerNameList();
List<SomeClass2> newList = CreateNewList(list);
return View(newList);
}
With respect to option 3 above I'd say: SomeClass1 (lives in Domain project) is a DTO and SomeClass2 (lives in WebUI project) is a ViewModel.
I am wondering if it ever makes sense to distinguish the two classes. Why wouldn't I always choose option (a) for the controller action (because it's easier)? Are there reasons to introduce the ViewModel (SomeClass2) in addition to the DTO (SomeClass1)?
I would solve your problem by using an auto-mapping tool (like AutoMapper) to do the mapping for you. In cases where the mapping is easy (for example if all properties from one class should be mapped to properties with the same name on another class) AutoMapper will be able to do all the hook-up work for you, and you'll have to give a couple of lines of code to note that there should be a map between the two at all.
That way, you can have your entities in Domain, and a couple of view model classes in your WebUI, and somewhere (preferrably in WebUI or a sub namespace of the same) define maps between them. Your view models will in effect be DTOs, but you won't have to worry much about the conversion process between the domain and your DTO classes.
Note: I would strongly recommend against giving your Domain entities straight to the views of your MVC web UI. You don't want EF to "stick around" all the way to the front-end layer, in case you later want to use something other than EF.
introduce ViewModels which live in the
WebUI project and expose IQueryables
and the EF data context from the
service to the WebUI project. Then I
could directly project into those
ViewModels.
The trouble with this is you soon run into problems using EF trying to 'flatten' models. I encountered something similar when I had a CommentViewModel class that looked like this:
public class CommentViewModel
{
public string Content { get; set; }
public string DateCreated { get; set; }
}
The following EF4 query projection to the CommentViewModel wouldn't work as the couldn't translate the ToString() method into SQL:
var comments = from c in DbSet where c.PostId == postId
select new CommentViewModel()
{
Content = c.Content,
DateCreated = c.DateCreated.ToShortTimeString()
};
Using something like Automapper is a good choice, especially if you have a lot of conversions to make. However, you can also create your own converters that basically convert your domain model to your view model. In my case I created my own extension methods to convert my Comment domain model to my CommentViewModel like this:
public static class ViewModelConverters
{
public static CommentViewModel ToCommentViewModel(this Comment comment)
{
return new CommentViewModel()
{
Content = comment.Content,
DateCreated = comment.DateCreated.ToShortDateString()
};
}
public static IEnumerable<CommentViewModel> ToCommentViewModelList(this IEnumerable<Comment> comments)
{
List<CommentViewModel> commentModels = new List<CommentViewModel>(comments.Count());
foreach (var c in comments)
{
commentModels.Add(c.ToCommentViewModel());
}
return commentModels;
}
}
Basically what I do is perform a standard EF query to bring back a domain model and then use the extension methods to convert the results to a view model. For example, the following methods illustrate the usage:
public Comment GetComment(int commentId)
{
return CommentRepository.GetById(commentId);
}
public CommentViewModel GetCommentViewModel(int commentId)
{
return CommentRepository.GetById(commentId).ToCommentViewModel();
}
public IEnumerable<Comment> GetCommentsForPost(int postId)
{
return CommentRepository.GetCommentsForPost(postId);
}
public IEnumerable<CommentViewModel> GetCommentViewModelsForPost(int postId)
{
return CommentRepository.GetCommentsForPost(postId).ToCommentViewModelList();
}
Talking about Models, ViewModels and DTOs is confusing, personally I don't like to use these terms. I prefer to talk about Domain Entities, Domain Services, Operation Input/Result (aka DTOs). All of these types live in the Domain layer. Operations is the behavior of Entities and Services. Unless you are building a pure CRUD application the presentation layer only deals with Input/Result types, not Entities. You don't need additional ViewModel types, these are the ViewModels (in other words, the Model of the View). The View is there to translate the Operation Results to HTML, but the same Result could be serialized as XML or JSON. What you use as ViewModel is part of the domain, not the presentation layer.
I'm experimenting with ASP.NET MVC2, in particular viewmodels and partials. My question is: Is it ‘valid’ or ‘right’ to have your partials strongly typed against an interface and the have your viewmodels implement that interface if the view uses the partial?
To illustrate, say I have a Product form partial (strongly typed against IProductFormViewModel) which is used in both the Edit and Create views. These views are strongly typed against ProductEditViewModel and ProductCreateViewModel which implement the IProductFormViewModel.
The benefit being that the corresponding POST actions for Create and Edit take ProductCreateViewModel & ProductEditViewModel objects respectively.
Edit:
If the partial has its own dedicated viewmodel (ProductFormViewModel) and each of the ProductEditViewModel & ProductCreateViewModel expose a property of type ProductFormViewModel which is passed to the partial, then when the form is submitted the model binding of ProductEditViewModel & ProductCreateViewModel doesn't work as the Edit and Create actions expect their respective object types...thats the reason for the approach.
You may have problems when your interfaces for your different partials expose the same property name e.g. name. You would then have to explicity implement the interface which would then cause problems with your model binding.
Otherwise it should work.
Yes, this seems a valid approach.
Interfaces are essentially contracts that need to be fulfilled by implementing classes. but in case of view engines i don't see any specific benefit of having you viewmodels implement an interface because at the end you have to instantiate the viewmodel in controller and pass it to the view and suppose you change implementation of ProductFormViewModel or EditProductViewModel, u still have to instantiate (populate) the object in controller and pass it to the view. so it does not achieve the same purpose as we do in repository pattern in conjunction with dependency injection. if you can tell what exactly u are trying to achieve by this approach, we might help.
Your approach is fine.
Or you could have a model specific to your partial and use composition instead, e.g.:
public class AddressModel
{
public string Address { get; set; }
public string Code { get; set; }
}
public class PersonModel
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public AddressModel Address { get; set; }
}
Then when redering your partial you pass it the correct model.
HTH
I am using POCO classes on an EF4 CTP5 project and I am having trouble deleting child properties. Here's my example (hopefully not too long).
Relevant Portions of the Tour Class
public partial class Tour
{
public Guid TourId { get; private set; }
protected virtual List<Agent> _agents { get; set; }
public void AddAgent(Agent agent)
{
_agents.Add(agent);
}
public void RemoveAgent(Guid agentId)
{
var a = Agents.Single(x => x.AgentId == agentId);
_agents.Remove(Agents.Single(x => x.AgentId == agentId));
}
}
Command Handler
public class DeleteAgentCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<DeleteAgentCommand>
{
private readonly IRepository<Core.Domain.Tour> _repository;
private readonly IUnitOfWork _unitOfWork;
public DeleteAgentCommandHandler(
IRepository<Core.Domain.Tour> repository,
IUnitOfWork unitOfWork
)
{
_repository = repository;
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
public void Receive(DeleteAgentCommand command)
{
var tour = _repository.GetById(command.TourId);
tour.RemoveAgent(command.AgentId);
// The following line just ends up calling
// DbContext.SaveChanges(); on the current context.
_unitOfWork.Commit();
}
}
Here's the error that I get when my UnitOfWork calls DbContext.SaveChanges()
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.
This is happening because EF wont just automatically delete the an Agent entity from the database just because it has been removed from the Agents collection in my Tour class.
I need to explicitly call dbContext.Agents.DeleteObject(a);, but my problem is, I don't have access to the dbContext from within my POCO.
Is there any way to handle this scenario?
With your current architecture I am afraid you need to feed your DeleteAgentCommandHandler with a second repository (IRepository<Core.Domain.Agent>, I guess) and then call something like Delete(command.AgentId) on that second repository.
Or you could extend your IUnitOfWork to be a factory of repositories, so the interface would get an additional method like T CreateRepository<T>() which allows you to pull any instance of your generic repository from the unit of work. (Then you only need to inject IUnitOfWork into the DeleteAgentCommandHandler, and not the repositories anymore.)
Or stay away from generic repositories in your business/UI layer. If Agent is completely dependent on Tour it doesn't need to have a repository at all. A non-generic ITourRepository could have methods to handle the case of removing an agent from a tour in the database layer appropriately.
This does seem like something that should work. I've found this post which suggests this feature is being investigated for future versions:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/adonetefx/thread/58a31f34-9d2c-498d-aff3-fc96988a3ddc/
I've also found another post (somewhere - unfortunately I lost it) which suggested adding the parent entity's key to the child entity in your DbContext OnModelCreating method like this:
modelBuilder.Entity<Agent>()
.HasKey(AgentId)
.HasKey(TourId);
Currently this throws an exception at runtime using code-first, although I have got this working when using an EDMX file by hacking the XAML to include the parent key in the store data model as well as the conceptual data model. I think this difference in behaviour is because in the case of the EDMX file, EF trusts that the store metadata it holds is accurate, whereas code-first checks the database to see whether it's model matches.
Another way which may work although I haven't yet tried it yet, is to include the parent key as a compound key in the child table so that code-first is happy. Obviously changing the database or hacking the XAML are both less than ideal and workarounds at best.
I have a class called 'Article' in a project called 'MyProject.Data', which acts as the data layer for my web application.
I have a separate project called 'MyProject.Admin', which is a web-based admin system for viewing/editing the data, and was build using ASP.NET Dynamic Data.
Basically I want to extend the Article class, using a partial class, so that I can augment one of its properties with a "UIHint" extender, which will allow me to replace the normal multi-line textbox with an FCKEdit control.
My partial class and extender would look like this:
[MetadataType(typeof(ProjectMetaData))]
public partial class Project
{
}
public class ProjectMetaData
{
[UIHint("FCKeditor")]
public object ItemDetails { get; set; }
}
Now this all works fine if the partial class is in the same project as the original partial class - i.e. the MyProject.Data project.
But UI behavior shouldn't sit in the Data layer, but rather, in the Admin layer. So I want to move this class to MyProject.Admin.
However, if I do that, the functionality is lost.
My fundamental question is: can I have 2 partial classes in separate projects, but both referring to the same "class"?
If not, is there a way to accomplish what I'm trying to do, without mixing data-layer logic with UI logic?
No, you cannot have two partial classes referring to the same class in two different assemblies (projects). Once the assembly is compiled, the meta-data is baked in, and your classes are no longer partial. Partial classes allows you to split the definition of the same class into two files.
As noted, partial classes is a compile-time phenomenon, not runtime. Classes in assemblies are by definition complete.
In MVC terms, you want to keep view code separate from model code, yet enable certain kinds of UI based on model properties. Check out Martin Fowler's excellent overview of the different flavours of MVC, MVP and whatnot: you'll find design ideas aplenty. I suppose you could also use Dependency Injection to tell the UI what kind of controls are viable for individual entities and attributes.
Your aim of separating concerns is great; but partial classes were intended to address entirely different issues (primarily with code generation and design-time modelling languages).
Extension methods and ViewModels are the standard way to extend data-layer objects in the frontend like this:
Data Layer (class library, Person.cs):
namespace MyProject.Data.BusinessObjects
{
public class Person
{
public string Name {get; set;}
public string Surname {get; set;}
public string Details {get; set;}
}
}
Display Layer (web application) PersonExtensions.cs:
using Data.BusinessObjects
namespace MyProject.Admin.Extensions
{
public static class PersonExtensions
{
public static HtmlString GetFormattedName(this Person person)
{
return new HtmlString(person.Name + " <b>" + person.Surname</b>);
}
}
}
ViewModel (for extended view-specific data):
using Data.BusinessObjects
namespace MyProject.Admin.ViewModels
{
public static class PersonViewModel
{
public Person Data {get; set;}
public Dictionary<string,string> MetaData {get; set;}
[UIHint("FCKeditor")]
public object PersonDetails { get { return Data.Details; } set {Data.Details = value;} }
}
}
Controller PersonController.cs:
public ActionMethod Person(int id)
{
var model = new PersonViewModel();
model.Data = MyDataProvider.GetPersonById(id);
model.MetaData = MyDataProvider.GetPersonMetaData(id);
return View(model);
}
View, Person.cshtml:
#using MyProject.Admin.Extensions
<h1>#Model.Data.GetFormattedName()</h1>
<img src="~/Images/People/image_#(Model.MetaData["image"]).png" >
<ul>
<li>#Model.MetaData["comments"]</li>
<li>#Model.MetaData["employer_comments"]</li>
</ul>
#Html.EditorFor(m => m.PersonDetails)
Add the base file as a linked file into your projects. It's still partial but it allows you to share it between both projects, keep them synchronized and at the same time have version/framework specific code in the partial classes.
I've had similar issues with this. I kept my partial classes in my Data project so in your case the 'MyProject.Data'. MetaDataClasses shouldn't go in your Admin project as you will create a circular references other wise.
I added a new Class Lib project for my MetaDataClasses e.g. 'MyProject.MetaData' and then referenced this from my Data project
Perhaps use a static extension class.
Just add class file as link in your new project and keep the same namespace in your partial class.
Since 2019 you can have 2 parts of a partial class in different assemblies using a trick. This trick is explained and demonstrated in this article:
https://www.notion.so/vapolia/Secret-feature-Xamarin-Forms-control-s-auto-registration-1fd6f1b0d98d4aabb2defa0eb14961fa
It uses at its core the MSBuild.Sdk.Extras extension to SDK like projects, which solves the limitation of having all partial parts of a class in the same assembly, by using one project with multiple simultaneous targets, effectively creating multiples assemblies in one compilation of the same project.
I may be mistaken here, but could you not simply define the ProjectMetaData class in your MyProject.Admin project?