I am pretty new to this stuff but I am running into a concept-wall and I keep going back and forth with the best way to handle the problem.
I have a multi-view process to filling out a "New User Form". Each view has a small part of the entire form. In each view I have a model and the model has properties set to an instance of a LINQ to SQL class (for pre-populating) along with dropdown data (state, country). I also thought I should have a model (value object) that represents the entire form. This value object has properties for each LINQ class as well. So I made the view take the value object as a dependency injection. Then what? Just set a property to ViewData to send in multiple models? Seems like a bad idea since I would have to do that to every view. Should all view models come from a base class with the value object?
I might be way off already. Hopefully someone can help me get back on track. The ultimate goal is to have an object that represents the state/data of a form that spans multiple views and the form fields should populate if data is present.
Thanks for your patience!
Okay, so I am going to try to answer my own question but I am still not sure about things. I am going to use the info I got here: http://www.asp.net/Learn/mvc/tutorial-13-cs.aspx to create an instance of the value object that will be available to every view. Then I am sending the instance (or a property of) into the view model through it's constructor.
I am still working on how to keep the instance of the value object through all pages but I am assuming it will have to be done through a session variable of sorts.
Related
I have a use case where I used different models for the GET and POST actions in my controller. This works great for my view, because most of the data goes into labels. The model for the GET method contains 10 properties, but the model for the POST method only needs 3.
This GET view renders a form, which only needs 3 of these properties, not all 10. Thus, the model for the POST method accepts a model class which contains only these 3 properties. Therefore, the ASP.Net MVC model binder populates the model class parameter on my POST method with only these 3 necessary properties, and all is well.
Here's the question: When I encounter some business rule violation in the POST method, and want to use ModelState.AddModelError, and re-display the original view, I no longer have the 7 properties that were not POSTed, as they were not part of the form, and are not part of the model class which this method takes as its parameter.
Currently, I'm calling into a builder to return an instance of the model class for the POST method, and have the GET method itself delegating to the same builder. So, in these cases, when there is some business rule violation in the POST method, I return a View("OriginalGetView", originalGetModel). How can I use ModelState.AddModelError in this case, in the POST method, if I want to send custom messages back to the view, using a completely different model class?
It seemed way too lazy to use the same model class for both the GET and POST methods, given that their needs were so different. What is the best practice here? I see a lot of people recommending to use the same model for both methods, and to POST all of the fields back from hidden form fields, but that just seems like a waste of bandwidth in the majority of cases, and it feels ugly to be sending things like "VendorName" back to the server, when I already have "VendorId".
I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to do, but make sure you aren't being penny-wise and pound foolish. I see you may only want to post the identifiers and not necessarily the descriptors. But it sounds like you have to re-display the view after posting...if so you can just access the model properties if you post the same model that is in the get. If you only post the identifiers, you have to spend time re-accessing the database to get the description values(i.e. vendorname as you describe) using the vendor id no? Wouldn't that also be extra processing? Like I said, I could be misunderstanding your post, but for consistency using the same view model for your view to get and post makes the most sense to me.
Hidden Inputs maybe the best solution here still I think, even on 2g you shouldn't create any lag unless unless the values of your Model properties are long strings or something encrypted or xml.
So your .cshtml would have this in it for the 4 properties not currently included in the form:
<form>
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.Property1)
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.Property2)
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.Property3)
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.Property4)
But you could also get the model state errors from the original posted model and recreate the ModelError state in your response model to get around using hidden inputs.
I just found this guide (not the answer with Green Checkmark but the highest upped Answer: ASP.NET MVC - How to Preserve ModelState Errors Across RedirectToAction?
Note: if you need to copy model properties from Model to another Model (of the same type or different type), in a cleaner way, check out AutoMapper.
Perhaps this could help with what you were trying to achieve - 'Model' level errors - which wouldn't need to attach to a specific field/property - but can be displayed in a Global area.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/53716648/10257093
Is there a option to pass data between Model and view in ASP.NET. If it can be accomplished how? This was asked in an interview !!!
Yes... well, the view is either typed, which means the object that represents the model is directly accessible, or the controller returns a ViewBag with data or anything else the view needs to render. That's the whole point of the model-view part of the pattern.
The whole point of MVC is that the data(Model) should be shown to user (View) by use of Controller. Even if the view is typed, your still need the model to bind to it. Even to create a ViewBag, you need the controller action to fill it...
I have say class/ojbect one which I am returning as details. But then there is a second class that is related to the first that I want to list (and have an option to look at the details). How do I get return both of those?
Example is like in an item as the main piece but there may be details or other items that are related to the main item. I will select them with a linq query but then how do I return them to the same view?
Do I need to have some sort of partial or other form to display the second object type?
I don't see where returning the view I can return both.
My thought for right now is to create a new class that contains both of the object types but I know there has to be a better way.
My thought for right now is to create a new class that contains both of the object types but I know there has to be a better way.
That is the right way. Create a ViewModel class that contains all the data that view needs and pass it to view.
You can either pass it to View through ViewState or ViewBag (depending on which MVC version you are using).
for the first object "main object" return it as the model of this view and for the details
put them into ViewState and cast them back within the view
There seem to be multiple means of passing model data from controllers in asp.net mvc to views. Its not clear to me if there's a recommended approach in the mvc v1 and v2 releases or if like most things in life, it depends. I've seen several approaches:
Option 1 - Populate the controller's ViewData dixtionary in either an icky string-based indexing way with casting in the view, or the in a strongly typed way by creating a strongly typed custom model class and passing that via ViewData.
Option 2 - Use ViewData.Model, which I'm not sure I even understand.
Option 3 - Use ViewPage.Model, in which case I'm not sure how you pass the model data from the controller.
I've seen a number of posts poo-pooing options 1 and 2 but I don't understand why. These posts seem to highly recommend 3 in most cases.
How do you approach this? Is there a standard way?
Every view 'should' have a specific model. This is sometimes more work so people use short cuts like ViewData, which works but is just not as clean and type safe in my opinion, so I prefer to have everything in the view's model.
You can then make all your views stongly typed. This is a very clean way to do so. Then in your controller you just call the view like:
YourViewModel model = new YourViewModel()
{
// initialize the data here
};
View(model);
Then in your views you can access all the data via ViewPage Model and it is all type safe and enforced from the controller as well.
EDIT from comments:
You don't need to use ViewData at all if you don't want. You can encapsulate all the data your view needs in a model. Just like the example you quoted with ProductsListViewData. It's just a model that contains all the items that were going to be stored in the ViewData. Both ways work but when you encapsulate it in a class (preferred method where everything is in the model) then all the bits and pieces are strongly typed.
ViewData is a generic container so even though you can just put anything you want into it, it is not type safe and therefore not as 'clean'. It comes down to preference and maintainability. There is only option 1 and 3. Your option 2 is misunderstood and is just option 3 in reality. There is no ViewData.Model just ViewPage.Model.
One approach you may wish to consider as your views become more complex, is to reserve the use of Models for input fields, and use ViewData to support anything else the View needs to render.
There are at least a couple of arguments to support this:
You have a master-page that requires some data to be present (e.g. something like the StackOverflow user information in the header). Applying a site-wide ActionFilter makes it easy to populate this information in ViewData after every action. To put it in model would require that every other Model in the site then inherit from a base Model (this may not seem bad initially, but it can become complicated quickly).
When you are validating a posted form, if there are validation errors you are probably going to want to rebind the model (with the invalid fields) back to the view and display validation messages. This is fine, as data in input fields is posted back and will be bound to the model, but what about any other data your view requires to be re-populated? (e.g. drop-down list values, information messages, etc) These will not be posted back, and it can become messy re-populating these onto the model "around" the posted-back input values. It is often simpler to have a method which populates the ViewData with the..view data.
In my experience I have found this approach works well.
And, in MVC3, the dynamic ViewModels means no more string-indexing!
This might be of some help:
When is it right to use ViewData instead of ViewModels?
(I know the following answer is highly arguable, but it's just the way I like to do it)
I would say use ViewData for simple data-tasks, and use the Model for the main purpose of the View. Check out Rob Conerys ViewData helper-classes here to give them a bit more Strongly typed feel:
http://blog.wekeroad.com/2010/01/20/my-favorite-helpers-for-aspnet-mvc
Using Models for absolubtely everything will bloat your project with hundreds of models just to achieve the smallest thing. I mean if you have a User-setting page, you would normally pass a User-model into the view, but if you decide to show some related data like Customers related to this User. You're stuck with the following solutions
You might have to add a List property to the User-model in order to expose the customers to the view. This leads to the Customer-property always being applied to the User-model everywhere else in the project - or make a new simpler User-model.
Make a new action that returns a partial of customers, which you can use with Html.RenderAction.
OR
you could do ViewData["Customers"] = myRepo.GetCustomersRelatedTo(user); // or something like that.
and (if using Robs helpers) in your view:
<%= Html.RenderPartial("CustomerList", Html.ViewData("Customers")) %>
add a PartialView called CustomerList that takes IEnumerable
In my humble opinion this is a cleaner solution and sure - you end up with a magic string here and there, but I'll stick to this approach until someone shows me a project with not a single magic string.
Use the tools we have in the Framework to get the job done. and Keep it simple s... ;)
I want to verify that a generated class (single entity or collection) from an O/RM tool is data binding compatible.
I read that supported data binding types in WCF are: one time, one way, two way, one way from source in WCF. But how about "old school" .NET 1.1 data binding ?
It looks kind of difficult to check in code what kind of data binding support there is. You also have difference in runtime and design time data binding support. When reading some webpages I read different kind of implementations: implement IList, IComponent, INotifyPropertyChanged, IBindingList.... pffffff I don't know exactly where to look for...
You can databind to virtually any class. Let's imagine you create a very simple class, with a few properties, say for instance, Person with a Name and Age. I am talking about a plain simple class with absolutely nothing fancy about it.
If you create an instance of Person, you can do several things with it, and I will assume you are working with Windows Forms, but this mostly applies to other frameworks:
- You can bind its properties to properties of controls.
- You can bind it to datagrids, lists, etc. In the former case you can set mappings of which properties bind to which columns. In the latter, which property is displayed in the list, which property is the value selected by the user.
- Even better, you can bind it to a bindingSource.
Binding a single instance to a grid or a list isn't that useful, so what usually is done is that you create a list of instances and bind those to the grid. Even more correct is to bind the list to a bindingsource and the grid to the bindingsource also.
You can see a good article here about how to do all this.
Now, about all the interfaces you mention, they all only add more value to the databinding experience. Let's talk about a few of them.
INotifyPropertyChanged. Person is not less "databindable" than any other object if it does not implement this interface. What instances of Person are not able to do, however, is notify the controls their properties are bound to that the latter have changed. Try this: Bind the Name property of a Person instance to the Text property of a TextBox. Create a button that when clicked changes the value of that instance's Name. You will see the TextBox does not update after clicking the button. If, on the other hand, you implement INotifyPropertyChanged and have the setter of the Name property raise the PropertyChangedEvent that is defined by the interface, after repeating the experience, you will see that the textbox is updated automatically.
IEnumerable. If instead of a single Person, you want to databind not to a set of people, you can create a list of people and databind to that list. Let's take for instance, List lst = new List(); How do the databinding controls like datagrid, bindingSource, etc., know you want to bind to a set of Person(s) and not to the properties of lst itself? It is because List implements IEnumerable. So, whenever you bind these controls to an instance of anything that implements IEnumerable, the controls know that you intend to bind not to the properties of the list, but to the instances the list refers to. How do they know the type of objects the list contains? To be more generic and support any type of IEnumerable implementation, they just check the type of the first element in the list and assume all others are equal.
IBindingList: Even if Person implements IPropertyChanged, if you group instances of Person into a List bind that list to a control and, by code, change the value of a property of one of the instances, you will see nothing happen in the screen. This happens because Person is notifying, not the binding source, but the list. But the list wasn't made for databinding, so it is not listening, nor propagating the event to the control. Lists that implement IBindingList, like BindingList, offer a better databinding support precisely by listening to the PropertyChangedEvent events of their contents and propagating them up to the databound control.
I am affraid I have given you no way of determining if an object is databoundable, because virtually all them are, but I hope I've given you a way of determining different levels of databinding support (INotifyPropertyChanged and IBindingList). I am assuming you know how to check for these via reflection.
Any instance of a class with properties is data bindable. (in fact instances of any class with fields or properties at all are data bindable)
Using reflection in .NET makes it very easy to discover/use data in an object. (at a small performance cost)
In order to answer this question you'd need to provide the specific usage scenarios you'll be encountering.
Rui gives some good explanation of different common data binding patterns, but each of them is for solving specific problems.
The right answer is always dependent on the context.
:)