I have example code in which the signature of the Create action menthod in the controller looks like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(JobCardViewData viewData)
I have just created a new MVC application and the same signature looks like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(FormCollection collection)
I would prefer to know how to implement my action methods like the top example, or at least how to convert from the FormCollection to a business object without going as low level as using Reflection.
Personally I avoid using FormCollection as it is a collection of magic strings. I would recommend you to always use this signature:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(JobCardViewData viewData)
and leave the model binder do the job of parsing the request parameters into a strongly typed object (you don't need to resort to reflection or doing anything).
Related
How to require/validate parameters for actions. Right now I have lot of actions that looks like this (which is horrible):
public ActionResult DoSomething(string paramA, string paramB, string paramC)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(paramA))
{
return JsonResult(false, "paramA is missing");
}
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(paramB))
{
return JsonResult(false, "paramB is missing");
}
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(paramC))
{
return JsonResult(false, "paramC is missing");
}
//Actual Code
}
How to encapsulte this (potentially "globally")? I know that its possible to wrap parameters to model and use ModelState.IsValid like in this post: https://stackoverflow.com/a/39538103/766304
That is maybe one step forward on same places but generally I don't that it's realistic to wrap all parameters to models everywhere (~1 class definition per 1 action method... how nice is that?).
Also this is again per action ceremony which should be handled somewhere centralized:
if (ModelState.IsValid == false)
{
return BadRequest(ModelState);
}
The easiest way to do it would be to create a model class and use [Required] attributes like this:
public class FooModel
{
[Required]
public string ParamA {get;set;}
[Required]
public string ParamB {get;set;}
[Required]
public string ParamC {get;set;}
}
And then use it in your controller like this:
public ActionResult DoSomething(FooModel model)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
// return some errors based on ModelState
}
//Actual Code
}
If you are looking for more global approach, then i believe you could look into Action Filters and use OnActionExecuting filter and handle the validation there (haven't used that myself tho).
Here is how to do it:
How can I centralize modelstate validation in asp.net mvc using action filters?
That way your method would never be called if any of the parameters were missing.
The model annotations with [Required] [Length] and all these attributes is one of the most common ways to validate your model, specially it integrates with the Razor View engine and generates JavaScript validation as well, the same will happen if you are using EntityFramework for your back end, so this way you will have validation at the level of the UI, Controller and Data access.
You can also use Code Contracts which allows you to put pre and post conditions for your method in a nice way https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264808(v=vs.110).aspx
If none of the above is still not enough, then you can add some checks in either your controller action or in your business domain service to make some business validation and return an error code if any errors found
Here's my method now:
public class UserTestAdminTestId
{
public int AdminTestId { get; set; }
}
[HttpPost]
[Route("Post")]
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Post([FromBody]UserTestAdminTestId userTestAdminTestId)
There's more code inside of the Post Method and the only data I need for it is the AdminTestId.
I made a model (class) to accept this but assuming that I send the AdminTestId as a JSON object, is there a way for me to tell the post method what to expect without creating a class for just one object?
Yes, but it will have to be a nullable int.
Keep in mind though that your body is only bound to one variable so if you have multiple values, you'll have to group them in a single type.
I want to have one model & view that is served by multiple controllers in my ASP.NET MVC 3 app.
I'm implementing a system that interacts with the users' online calendar and I support Exchange, Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, Apple, ect... Each of these has wildly different implementations of calendar APIs, but I can abstract that away with my own model. I'm thinking that by implementing the polymorphism at the controller level I will be able to deal cleanly with the different APIs and authentication issues.
I have a nice clean model and view and I've implemented two controllers so far that prove I can read/query/write/update to both Exchange and Google: ExchangeController.cs and GoogleController.cs.
I have /Views/Calendar which contains my view code. I also have /Models/CalendarModel.cs that includes my model.
I want the test for which calendar system the user is using to happen in my ControllerFactory. I've implemented it like this:
public class CustomControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory
{
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext requestContext, Type controllerType)
{
if (controllerType == typeof(CalendarController))
{
if(MvcApplication.IsExchange) // hack for now
return new ExchangeController();
else
return new GoogleController();
}
return base.GetControllerInstance(requestContext, controllerType);
}
}
and in my Application_Start:
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new CustomControllerFactory());
This works. If I got to http://.../Calendar this factory code works and the correct controller is created!
This worked beautifully and I did it without really understanding what I was doing. Now i think I got it but I want to make sure I'm not missing something. I really spent time searching for something like this and didn't find anything.
One thing that concerns me is that I figured I'd be able to have an inheritance relationship between CalendarController and ExchangeController/GoogleController like this:
public class ExchangeController : CalendarController
{
But if I do that I get:
The current request for action 'Index' on controller type 'GoogleController' is ambiguous between the following action methods:
System.Web.Mvc.ViewResult Index(System.DateTime, System.DateTime) on type Controllers.GoogleController
System.Web.Mvc.ActionResult Index() on type Controllers.CalendarController
Which bums me out because I wanted to put some common functionality on the base and now I guess I'll have to use another way.
Is this the right way to do have multiple controllers for one view/model? What else am I going to have to consider?
EDIT: More details on my impl
Based on the responses below (thanks!) I think I need to show some more code to make sure you guys see what I'm trying to do. My model is really just a data model. It starts with this:
/// <summary>
/// Represents a user's calendar across a date range.
/// </summary>
public class Calendar
{
private List<Appointment> appointments = null;
/// <summary>
/// Date of the start of the calendar.
/// </summary>
public DateTime StartDate { get; set; }
/// <summary>
/// Date of the end of the calendar
/// </summary>
public DateTime EndDate { get; set; }
/// <summary>
/// List of all appointments on the calendar
/// </summary>
public List<Appointment> Appointments
{
get
{
if (appointments == null)
appointments = new List<Appointment>();
return appointments;
}
set { }
}
}
Then my controller has the following methods:
public class ExchangeController : Controller
{
//
// GET: /Exchange/
public ViewResult Index(DateTime startDate, DateTime endDate)
{
// Exchange specific gunk. The MvcApplication._service thing is a temporary hack
CalendarFolder calendar = (CalendarFolder)Folder.Bind(MvcApplication._service, WellKnownFolderName.Calendar);
Models.Calendar cal = new Models.Calendar();
cal.StartDate = startDate;
cal.EndDate = endDate;
// Copy the data from the exchange object to the model
foreach (Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment exAppt in findResults.Items)
{
Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment a = Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment.Bind(MvcApplication._service, exAppt.Id);
Models.Appointment appt = new Models.Appointment();
appt.End = a.End;
appt.Id = a.Id.ToString();
...
}
return View(cal);
}
//
// GET: /Exchange/Details/5
public ViewResult Details(string id)
{
...
Models.Appointment appt = new Models.Appointment();
...
return View(appt);
}
//
// GET: /Exchange/Edit/5
public ActionResult Edit(string id)
{
return Details(id);
}
//
// POST: /Exchange/Edit/5
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(MileLogr.Models.Appointment appointment)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment a = Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment.Bind(MvcApplication._service, new ItemId(appointment.Id));
// copy stuff from the model (appointment)
// to the service (a)
a.Subject = appointment.Subject
...
a.Update(ConflictResolutionMode.AlwaysOverwrite, SendInvitationsOrCancellationsMode.SendToNone);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
return View(appointment);
}
//
// GET: /Exchange/Delete/5
public ActionResult Delete(string id)
{
return Details(id);
}
//
// POST: /Exchange/Delete/5
[HttpPost, ActionName("Delete")]
public ActionResult DeleteConfirmed(string id)
{
Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment a = Microsoft.Exchange.WebServices.Data.Appointment.Bind(MvcApplication._service, new ItemId(id));
a.Delete(DeleteMode.MoveToDeletedItems);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
So it's basically the typical CRUD stuff. I've provided the sample from the ExchangeCalendar.cs version. The GoogleCalendar.cs is obviously similar in implementation.
My model (Calendar) and the related classes (e.g. Appointment) are what get passed from controller to view. I don't want my view to see details of what underlying online service is being used. I do not understand how implementing the Calendar class with an interface (or abstract base class) will give me the polymorphism I am looking for.
SOMEWHERE I have to pick which implementation to use based on the user.
I can either do this:
In my model. I don't want to do this because then my model gets all crufty with service specific code.
In the controller. E.g. start each controller method with something that redirects to the right implementation
Below the controller. E.g. as I'm suggesting above with a new controller factory.
The responses below mention "service layer". I think this is, perhaps, where I'm off the rails. If you look at the way MVC is done normally with a database, the dbContext represents the "service layer", right? So maybe what you guys are suggesting is a 4th place where I can do the indirection? For example Edit above would go something like this:
private CalendarService svc = new CalendarService( e.g. Exchange or Google );
//
// POST: /Calendar/Edit/5
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(MileLogr.Models.Appointment appointment)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
svc.Update(appointment);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
return View(appointment);
}
Is this the right way to do it?
Sorry this has become so long-winded, but it's the only way I know how to get enough context across...
END EDIT
I wouldn't do it this way. As Jonas points out, controllers should be very simple and are intended to coordinate various "services" which are used to respond to the request. Are the flows of requests really all that different from calendar to calendar? Or is the data calls needed to grab that data different.
One way to do this would be to factor your calendars behind a common calendar interface (or abstract base class), and then accept the calendar into the controller via a constructor parameter.
public interface ICalendar {
// All your calendar methods
}
public abstract class Calendar {
}
public class GoogleCalendar : Calendar {}
public class ExchangeCalendar : Calendar {}
Then within your CalendarController,
public class CalendarController {
public CalendarController(ICalendar calendar) {}
}
This won't work by default, unless you register a dependency resolver. One quick way to do that is to use NuGet to install a package that sets one up. For example:
Install-Package Ninject.Mvc3
I think this would be a better architecture. But suppose you disagree, let me answer your original question.
The reason you get the ambiguous exception is you have two public Index methods that are not distinguished by an attribute that indicates one should respond to GETs and one to POSTs. All public methods of a controller are action methods.
If the CalendarController isn't meant to be instantiated directly (i.e. it'll always be inherited), then I would make the Index method on that class protected virtual and then override it in the derived class.
If the CalendarController is meant to be instantiated on its own, and the other derived classes are merely "flavors" of it, then you need to make the Index method public virtual and then have each of the derived classes override the Index method. If they don't override it, they're adding another Index method (C# rules, not ours) and you need to distinguish them for MVC's sake.
I think you're on a dangerous path here. A controller should generally be as simple as possible, and only contain the "glue" between e.g. your service layer and the models/views. By moving your general calendar abstractions and vendor specific implementations out of the controllers, you get rid of the coupling between your routes and the calendar implementation.
Edit: I would implement the polymorphism in the service layer instead, and have a factory class in the service layer check your user database for the current user's vendor and instantiate the corresponding implementation of a CalendarService class. This should eliminate the need for checking the calendar vendor in the controller, keeping it simple.
What I mean by coupling to the routes is that your custom URLs is what is currently causing you problems AFAICT. By going with a single controller and moving the complexity to the service layer, you can probably just use the default routes of MVC.
As the other answers suggest, you really should refactor your code so as to not require the multiple controllers in the first place.
However, you can still have your controllers inherit from a base class controller - you simply need to make sure that when you register the routes in the Global.asax.cs, you use the overload that specifies which namespace to find the controllers and action methods for a given route
e.g.
routes.MapRoute(null, "{controller}/{action}", new[] { "Namespace.Of.Controllers.To.USe" });
On ASP.NET MVC 3, assume that we have following controller action:
public ActionResult Index() {
ViewBag.Message = "Foo Bar";
return View();
}
Here, Index method is returning ViewResult instance which implements System.Web.Mvc.ViewResultBase class. Because of the fact that we return instance of a ViewResult class, system tries to find a proper view file in order to generate an output. If it cannot find it, it will throw an exception.
My question is this:
Is there any other base class which looks for a view other than System.Web.Mvc.ViewResultBase?
In plain English, do we have to return a class, which implements System.Web.Mvc.ViewResultBase class, from controller action in order to render the result with a view?
EDIT
Also, as you see here I am telling that I will return a type of ActionResult which is the base, base class so to speak. When you look at the end, I am returning an instance of ViewResult.
How does framework handle that? Does it try to cast every controller action result to ViewResultBase class on the fly? I am really curious about this part especially.
The ControllerActionInvoker class is responsible for executing the controller actions. After finding and executing the action it looks for the action return type:
If the return type is void then it the creates a EmptyResult
If the return type anything but ActionResult then it converts the returned value to string and creates a ContentResult with that string.
So finally a result of an action is always an instance of the ActionResult class which declares the following method:
public abstract void ExecuteResult(ControllerContext context);
Then the ControllerActionInvoker basically calls this ExecuteResult method to allow for the ActionResult to write to the Reponse. There is where in the case of ViewResultBase the view rendering is happening.
To answer your fist question in MVC3 only the descandants of the ViewResultBase class are rendering views.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(FormCollection collection)
{
UpdateModel(collection);
context.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index", new {controller = "Home"});
}
The action succeed, but there was no recored inserted into the database. Why?
I do not want to manually create a object by getting each value from each field in form collection.
UpdateModel(collection);
context.SaveChanges();
You didn't made any changes to the context in order to expect something to get saved. Entity Framework (assuming this is what you are using) works with objects. So you need a model and persist this model into the database. So your controller action could look like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Product product)
{
_repository.Create(product);
return RedirectToAction("Index", new {controller = "Home"});
}
where the _repository variable is some interface which defines the operations on your models. Using an interface here allows you to separate your data access logic from your controller logic. In the implementation of this repository you could be using any data access technology you like such as EF or NHibernate, it's just that your controller shouldn't know about it.
Are you sure the context is open and it's the same from which your object has been extracted ? is the object is still connected to the context ?
usually you create a new context in each call, you need to attach the object to the context change it state to modified and than use SaveChanges.
Otherwise, nothing is done.
context.Customers.Attach(myCustomre);
context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(myCustomre, System.Data.EntityState.Modified);
context.SaveChanges();
and for insert:
context.Customers.AddObject(newCustomer);
context.SaveChanges();