Is it a good idea to move checkbox-checking logic out of the markup, specifically the 'checked="checked"' inline script such as
<input type="checkbox" name="LikesWork" <%= Model.LikesWork ? "checked=\"checked\"" : "" %> />
and have this be replaced with a some code that takes a dictionary with a javascript (jQuery) selector as the key and a bool as the value. Then the checkboxes would get checked by the javascript, simplifying the markup.
<input type="checkbox" name="LikesWork" />
...
<%
Dictionary<string, bool> checkElements = new Dictionary<string, bool>();
checkElements.Add("#likesWork", Model.Account.LikesWork);
Response.Write(Html.CheckCheckboxes(checkElements));
%>
If this isn't a good idea, why not?
I disagree with that approach. If you don't have to, I wouldn't rely on javascript for that. It may not be likely, but there are several reasons why that could fail:
User has JS disabled
Another js error on the page prevents your script from processing
User is accessing your site from a mobile device of sorts that doesn't support your script
HTML is just safe. In my opinion, this introduces a potential point of failure that didn't exist before.
You could always just use the strongly typed CheckBoxFor helper and avoid this mess altogether. Relevant bit from documentation:
Return Value
Type: System.Web.Mvc.MvcHtmlString
An HTML input element whose type attribute is set to "checkbox" for each property in the object that is represented by the specified expression.
Related
i am using liferay-ui:search-container-column-button inside liferay container the button should point to another jsp with take parameter from the current selected row.
<liferay-ui:search-container emptyResultsMessage="There are no organizations available">
<liferay-ui:search-container-results
results="<%=OrganizationLocalServiceUtil.getOrganizationAll() %>"
total="<%=OrganizationLocalServiceUtil.getOrganizationsCount() %>">
</liferay-ui:search-container-results>
<liferay-ui:search-container-row
className ="fff.sem.service.model.Organization"
keyProperty="organizationId"
modelVar="organization"
escapedModel="<%=true %>"
>
<liferay-ui:search-container-column-text
name="Organization short name"
value="<%= organization.getOrganizationShortName() %>">
</liferay-ui:search-container-column-text>
<liferay-ui:search-container-column-text
name="Organization full name"
value="<%= organization.getOrganizationFullName() %>">
</liferay-ui:search-container-column-text>
<liferay-ui:search-container-column-button href="<%=addOrganization1URL %>"></liferay-ui:search-container-column-button>
<liferay-ui:search-container-column-jsp
align="right"
path="/html/sem/organization_actions.jsp"
/>
</liferay-ui:search-container-row>
As you noticed in the code I used search-container-column-jsp to add edit and delete feature for the row. I use a column with search-container-column-button so that each button of that column point to another form, but the search-container-column-button wont react on clicking. What is going on?
Recent Liferay forum posts indicate a potential issue with the taglib:
search-container-column-button does not work
Issue in calling an action from liferay search-container-column-button tag
grep of the Liferay source code nor a github search return a single instance where the taglib is used.
My attempts to use the <liferay-ui:search-container-column-button to properly call any type (action, render, resource) URL were not successful. In examining the source closer, I believe the generic dump of the href attribute value into the onclick attribute is the problem.
In comparing the html generated by a <aui:button> to that of the search-container-column-button the onclick attribute is missing location.href=
I would recommend using a liferay-ui:search-container-column-jsp as you have done for the other actions, but instead of an icon-menu use a <aui:button> if you want the field to be a button.
Including the missing info:
<%
final String hrefFix = "location.href='" + addOrganization1URL .toString()+"'";
%>
<liferay-ui:search-container-column-button href="<%=hrefFix%>"/>
does provide a working solution, however, if this is indeed a bug and is fixed in a future patch, this workaround would then become a bug.
I know I can eliminate ID mangling in ASP.NET 4.0, but can I also eliminate name mangling? This looks like the best I can do:
<input name="ctl00$body$txtName" type="text" id="txtName" />
Is that correct?
ASP.NET relies on name mangling to route posted form data to input controls in nested naming containers. The ways to avoid name mangling are:
Don't use nested naming containers such as master pages or user controls. Input controls that are placed directly on an .aspx page will have simple names.
Don't use the standard ASP.NET input controls. Instead, you could:
Put <input type="text" name="name" /> (without runat="server") in the .ascx/.aspx and access its value via Request.Form["name"].
Create a custom server control that does the same.
Ok, so here's the deal. I needed to change the values of form elements dynamically (server side), I need to keep the MasterPage, and I have panels on the page as well. There is no way around it.
What I have done instead, is use server side "yellow tags", and public variables:
HTML:
<input type='hidden' name='x_login' id='x_login' value="<%= x_login %>" />
Code:
Public x_login As String = "some value"
And to access the value after a postback:
Request.Form("x_login")
Thanks to Michael Liu's answer for the very last bit there. I've upvoted his answer just for that reason.
From my page's code-behind I want to access the value of this hidden field. The value is set properly. I confirmed by checking its value.
<div class="hiddenValues">
<input id="HiddenReportId" type="hidden" />
</div>
From my code behind, I'm using the following to access the above input
string id = Request.Form["HiddenReportId"];
When I run the application this line throws a null exception. Any suggestions ? Thanks!
The input needs to be inside of the form tag (which it may be, can't tell from the code snippet). Also, it needs to have a name attribute:
<div class="hiddenValues">
<input id="HiddenReportId" name="HiddenReportId" type="hidden" />
</div>
Its id attribute may be redundant and isn't necessary if you're not using it. But form elements are identified by their name attributes in a POST.
(It feels a bit unintuitive from an ASP.NET perspective to the uninitiated, I know. ASP.NET convention is to identify everything by an ID, but web browsers use name when crafting a POST. And the web browser knows nothing of the server-side technology being used, it follows HTTP standards instead.)
As I understand it, the <input type=email> element in HTML5 will render as a simple text field in browsers that do not support the tag. On other browsers it will render properly, like on the iPhone it will bring up the e-mail keyboard layout.
I’d like to use this in a project but my input fields are <asp:TextBox> controls. How can I use the HTML5 element but still access its data server-side like the rest of my fields?
There is an update for .NET framework 4 which allows you to specify the type attribute
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2468871.
See feature 3 way down the page
Feature 3
New syntax lets you define a
TextBox control that is HTML5
compatible. For example, the following
code defines a TextBox control that is
HTML5 compatible:
<asp:TextBox runat="server" type="some-HTML5-type" />
you can try adding the attributes manually, like:
TextBox1.Attributes["type"] = "email";
TextBox1.Attributes["type"] = "url";
TextBox1.Attributes["type"] = "number";
Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, though I think that others can benefit from what I did. I have a page which is HTML 5 though we still have .NET 3.5. We wanted to keep the .NET element, though have the type change to email. I've tried several methods (including Milox above) to no avail, though the one which worked for me was the following: I added a JavaScript property to the element itself inline (when I put it in a script tag it wouldn't pick up for some reason...)
Here is what your tag would look like if you use my changes:
<asp:TextBox runat="server" type="email" onfocus="this.type='email'"/>
Eli
Whether or not it is accessible as a server control, you should be able to access the HttpRequest.Form collection and retrieve the value. No matter what the browser does with the tag, it has to submit a string to the server.
in your .aspx file add
<input type="text" required autofocus placeholder="Email Address"
class="txt-input txt-input-username" ID="myTextBox" runat="server"/>
in your Code Behind .cs
myTextBox.Attributes["type"] = "email";
This Worked For Me
You need to create your own custom control and override the Render routines. Feel free to use either the source code or DLLs
A simple question, I think:
I want to put a tag into an ASP.NET app I've been asked to maintain, so I'm coming at this from a newbie point of view just tinkering around the edges without knowing a lot.
I wrote an old ASP application back in 1998, so I am just running on memory...
How do I write some output to the webpage?
I know I can use an
<asp:label id="blah">
but then I need to define a Label blah; in my code behind and then assign it.
I believe that I can put in-place:
<% Response.Write("sometext"); %>
and that will write sometext in the location within the page. (Am I correct?)
Lastly, I remember there was a syntax to the effect of
<%= "some string" %>
but I can't find the documentation on it, to say either it is deprecated, unadvised, or the rationale for such a decision.
I have tried googling for "ASP.NET grammar" but I can't even find a good description that "<%=" even exists, though it is mentioned in a few blogs.
For something simple, like inject the global version number, or the current date, then I can't see anything particularly wrong with in-place composition - it would save me defining 15 labels and having to initialise them all - though perhaps the asp:label approach could reference one global instance of a label?
Just asking for opinions on good practices :)
<%= string %> is perfectly valid ASP.NET syntax. The reason you will often find references to problems with using that is people use <%= (equivalent to Response.Write) when they should use <%# (for databinding) or vice-versa.
For example, we use it very extensively in our content managed site, where we pull in values from a global settings repository:
<%= SiteContext.Current.GetSetting("SiteTitle") %>
MSDN:
MSDN entry on <%= (this is under the JScript.NET section but still applies)
MSDN entry on <%#
Some others suggest <%= is not a "best practice" or a very good approach, but I strongly disagree with that sentiment. For an MVC-ish type site (especially a site that is template- or view-driven in some way), the most direct approach is frequently more effective than using server controls.
Just be mindful that when you use an <asp:Label /> it renders the .Text inside the <span> tag whereas an <asp:Literal /> adds no extraneous HTML to the string passed to it.
For example, if you were building a content management system and wanted to display user-driven HTML, a Label control would not correctly display the output from a WYSIWYG type rich textbox whereas a Literal control is the appropriate choice.
The <%= %> is the late-bound equivalent of the Literal's .Text property. The only difference here is when the value is placed in the page (aside from obvious syntax and separation of concerns paradigm) during the course of the page lifecycle.
Since the .Text property is on a control inherited from WebControl, it can be set/read/manipulated during any of the events following the control's Load event (wherever/whenever you load the control inside the page), but the <%= %> text cannot be directly read/used/manipulated by the code-behind without referencing some other control to get to it (like a containing div's InnerHtml property).
There are lots of options. You could use a single label, and string concatenate all the data you want displayed in that location.
You could create a user control with the layout you want and assign values that way.
You could inject it directly with response.write or the <%= %> syntax
You could create an HtmlGenericControl in your code behind (it's a div), add some text to it, and inject it into the pages controls collection.
Whatever you pick, try and go with the existing style of the coded page.
Look up the term "render blocks" for the <% %> syntax.
How about using
<asp:Literal id="z" text="goofy" runat="server" />?
Labels are usually used with forms.
You can also take full control of the rendering of your pages and controls and compose whatever you need to. You control the HTML, the order of rendering your controls, etc...
Go with the <asp:label /> (or a literal control if you want to customize some html in the content). Seriously. I'ts not that hard: when you put label in your markup visual studio will create it in the code-behind for you, so there's no extra work involved.
You could use the <%= "some string" %> syntax in web forms, but there can be issues when mixing that with the asp controls and there's a good reason new frameworks moved away from mixing logic like that in with your markup.