We're trying to get a conditional attribute to work, case in point, there's a boolean (checkbox) that if checked, its related text is required. So, ideally we'd have something like ...
public bool Provision { get; set; }
[ConditionalRequirement(IsNeededWhenTrue = Provision)]
public string ProvisionText { get; set; }
Is this even possible?
Alternate idea (not as elegant?)
public bool Provision2 { get; set; }
[PropertyRequired(RequiredBooleanPropertyName = "Provision2")]
public string Provision2Text { get; set; }
I'd hate to use the magic string method ... but any other ideas?
Ended up rolling my own. Basically you create a valiation method that does your normal check of yes, no, whatever and collects them in some kind of error collection. The rub with this is sending it BACK to the Model itself. So I got lazy and strongly typed it as such ...
public static void AddError<T>(this ErrorCollection errorCollection, Expression<Func<T, object>> expression, string friendlyUiName)
{
var propertyName = GetPropertyName(expression.ToString(), expression.Parameters[0].Name);
var propertyInfo = typeof (T).GetProperty(propertyName);
var resultError = DetermineOutput(friendlyUiName, propertyInfo.PropertyType);
errorCollection.Errors.Add(new ValidationError(propertyName, resultError));
}
so then you're validation statements have something like this in them ...
if (FirstName.IsEmpty())
EntityErrorCollection.AddError<SomeClass>(x => x.FirstName, "First Name");
Then within the controller, a simple check and port it BACK to the model if it (isn't valid of course) ...
foreach (var error in someObject.EntityErrorCollection.Errors)
ModelState.AddModelError(error.Property, error.Message);
There's probably a more cleaner way of doing this but so far, this has been working just fine.
Related
In my database I have two entities: DbStatus and DbTask
public class DbStatus
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<DbTask> Tasks { get; set; }
}
public class DbTask
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public bool Done { get; set; }
public int StatusId { get; set; }
public virtual DbStatus Status { get; set; }
}
In the OnModelCreating method, I establish the relation with the following code:
modelBuilder.Entity<DbStatus>()
.HasMany(s => s.Tasks)
.WithOne(t => t.Status)
.HasForeignKey(t => t.StatusId);
I also add some sample data in this method, setting the StatusId of newly created DbTasks.
Problem is, when I try to access the Status name of the DbTask using
task.Status.Name
I get a NullReferenceException.
Can anyone help me how to set up the relation properly?
IMPORTANT
For anyone reading this, the quickest solution (and the one fulfilling task-specific criterias) for this was provided Rob. However, you should read and implement the solution provided by Steve Py, for the reasons they also describe in their answer!
When getting your list of DbTasks from the database, you need to tell it to include the child Status objects.
Try something like this:
var tasks = dbContext.DbTasks
.Include(t => t.Status)
.ToList();
Setting a FK on an entity does not automatically cause that related entity to be loaded. When working with navigation properties I recommend avoiding declaring FK fields in entities and using shadow properties to avoid issues like this.
To update a status on a DbTask:
public ActionResult MarkTaskComplete(int taskId)
{
var completeStatus = _context.Statuses.Single(x => x.StatusId = Statuses.Complete);
// TODO: Validation that user can update task etc.
var task = _context.Tasks
.Include(x => x.Status)
.Single(x => x.TaskId == taskId);
task.Status = completeStatus;
_context.SaveChanges();
return Json(new { success = true; status = task.Status.Name } );
}
The issue with FK fields is that the behaviour can differ depending on whether you use the navigation property or the FK, and whether the navigation property is eager loaded or not. From the perspective of the Task, there are two sources of truth for the current Status, some code might check task.StatusId while others use task.Status.StatusId. These values could differ depending on one being updated without the other.
While this can mean a trip to the DB to fetch a status, fetching rows by ID is extremely fast, and also provides a validation that your methods are only using legal values.
I'm using a C# 9.0 record type as a binding model for a .NET 5.0 Web API project. Some of the properties are required.
I'm using the record positional syntax, but am receiving errors.
public record Mail(
System.Guid? Id,
[property: Required]
string From,
[property: Required]
string[] Tos,
[property: Required]
string Subject,
string[]? Ccs,
string[]? Bccs,
[property: Required]
Content[] Contents,
Attachment[]? Attachments
);
This is then exposed as the binding model for my Index action:
public async Task<ActionResult> Index(Service.Models.Mail mailRequest)
{
…
}
Whenever I try to make a request, however, I receive the following error:
Record type 'Service.Models.Mail' has validation metadata defined on property 'Contents' that will be ignored. 'Contents' is a parameter in the record primary constructor and validation metadata must be associated with the constructor parameter.
I tried removing the attribute on the Contents property, but it then fails for the next (prior) property. I tried using [param: …] instead of [property: …], as well as mixing them, but keep getting the same kind of error.
I looked around the web, and haven't found any suggestion of handling annotations differently for C# 9 records. I did my best, but I'm out of ideas—outside of converting my records to POCOs.
I gave up using Positional constructor, and with the verbose full declaration of the properties, it works.
public record Mail
{
public System.Guid? Id { get; init; }
[Required]
public string From { get; init; }
[Required]
public string[] Tos { get; init; }
[Required]
public string Subject { get; init; }
public string[]? Ccs { get; init; }
public string[]? Bccs { get; init; }
[Required]
public Content[] Contents { get; init; }
public Attachment[]? Attachments { get; init; }
public Status? Status { get; init; }
public Mail(Guid? id, string #from, string[] tos, string subject, string[]? ccs, string[]? bccs, Content[] contents, Attachment[]? attachments, Status status)
{
Id = id;
From = #from;
Tos = tos;
Subject = subject;
Ccs = ccs;
Bccs = bccs;
Contents = contents;
Attachments = attachments;
Status = status;
}
}
Try using only [Required] (instead of [property: Required]), for some reason worked for me
For me it started to work by adding the [ApiController] attribute to the controller.
I found something similar on ASP.NET Core Razor pages getting:
InvalidOperationException: Record type 'WebApplication1.Pages.LoginModelNRTB+InputModel' has validation metadata defined on property 'PasswordB' that will be ignored. 'PasswordB' is a parameter in the record primary constructor and validation metadata must be associated with the constructor parameter.
from
Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ModelBinding.ModelMetadata.ThrowIfRecordTypeHasValidationOnProperties()
After some digging, I found: https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/blob/main/src/Mvc/Mvc.Core/src/ModelBinding/Validation/DefaultComplexObjectValidationStrategy.cs
So maybe as you've done, the verbose declaration is the way forward.
Positional record attributes in ASP.NET Core background
How do I target attributes for a record class? more background
Using FluentValidation and keeping properties with the full declaration seems to work perfectly in my case. I highly recommend trying this highly polished alternative validation library instead of using the pretty old standard data annotations
public record LoginViewModel
{
public string Mail { get; init; }
public string Password { get; init; }
public bool IsPersistent { get; init; }
}
public class LoginValidator : AbstractValidator<LoginViewModel>
{
public LoginValidator()
{
RuleFor(l => l.Mail).NotEmpty().EmailAddress();
RuleFor(l => l.Password).NotEmpty();
}
}
I post this question because I dont found similar issue yet. I'm trying to ensure Full Text Search in .net core app, and according to npgsql documentation I have:
1) Model
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
public long License { get; set; }
public NpgsqlTsVector SearchVector { get; set; }
}
2) DatabaseContext:
modelBuilder.Entity<User>()
.HasIndex(p => p.SearchVector)
.ForNpgsqlHasMethod("GIN");
3) Migrations:
migrationBuilder.Sql(
#"CREATE TRIGGER user_search_vector_update BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE
ON ""Users"" FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE
ts`enter code here`vector_update_trigger(""SearchVector"", 'pg_catalog.english', ""Name"", ""Surname"");");
Now, I'm trying use FTS in my app, where method Search gets from header 'phase' (string).
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> Search([FromHeader] string phase)
{
NpgsqlTsQuery tsVestor = EF.Functions.ToTsQuery("english", phase);
var response = Ok(_context.Users.Where(c => c.SearchVector.Matches(phase)).ToList());
return response;
}
I got:
NotSupportedException: Specified method is not supported.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.NpgsqlFullTextSearchDbFunctionsExtensions.ToTsQuery(DbFunctions _, string config, string query) in NpgsqlFullTextSearchDbFunctionsExtensions.cs
I also tried send by Header lexeme and comment line:
NpgsqlTsQuery tsVestor = EF.Functions.ToTsQuery("english", phase);
but i got: PostgresException: 42883: operator does not exist: tsvector ## text
Does anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong?
EDIT ---- :
Ok, I found answer on my question. Converting from string to NpgsqlTsQuery must be inside Matches method:
public async Task<IActionResult> SearchUsers([FromHeader] string phase)
{
return Ok(_context.Users.Where(c => c.SearchVector.Matches(EF.Functions.ToTsQuery(phase))));
}
Placing this convertion outside Matches method threw "NotSupportedException", and putting plain text as function argument threw 42883 Exeception.
Now, it's clear what I was doing wrong.
As #sonofaforester suggests, I put answer on my own question:
Converting from string to NpgsqlTsQuery must be inside Matches method:
public async Task<IActionResult> SearchUsers([FromHeader] string phase)
{
return Ok(_context.Users.Where(c => c.SearchVector.Matches(EF.Functions.ToTsQuery(phase))));
}
Placing this conversation outside Matches method threw "NotSupportedException", and putting plain text as function argument threw 42883 Exception.
I'm using OData v5/Web API 2.2 to create an endpoint that will return a list of employees from each company.
My problem occurs when I try to implement server-side paging while also using the OData $expand property. When I try to make a call to
http://localhost:60067/Companies?$expand=Employees
I get an error that says "Could not find a property named 'Employees' on type 'System.Web.OData.Query.Expressions.SelectAllAndExpand_1OfCompanyApiModel'"
However, when I removed the EnableQuery attribute the call to the endpoint or when I didn't expand it works as expected. Does anyone have an idea of what I am doing wrong? I've been googling this for a while but haven't found anything.
Here are some code snippets -
Data Models:
public class CompanyApiModel
{
[Key]
public Guid CompanyGuid { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
// other properties
public List<EmployeeApiModel> Employees { get; set; }
}
public class EmployeeApiModel
{
[Key]
public Guid EmployeeGuid { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
// other properties
}
CompaniesController.cs:
[EnableQuery(PageSize = 10)] // If I comment this out everything works
//[EnableQuery] // This fails as well
public IHttpActionResult Get(ODataQueryOptions<CompanyApiModel> queryOptions)
{
var companies = GetCompanies(queryOptions);
return Ok(companies);
// return Ok(companies.AsQueryable()); // This doesn't work either
}
WebApiConfig.cs:
public static class WebApiConfig
{
public static void Register(HttpConfiguration config)
{
config.IncludeErrorDetailPolicy = IncludeErrorDetailPolicy.Always;
var routingConventions = ODataRoutingConventions.CreateDefault();
routingConventions.Insert(0, new OptionsRoutingConvention());
config.MapODataServiceRoute("odata", null, GetEdmModel(), new DefaultODataPathHandler(), routingConventions);
// below code allows endpoints to respond with either XML or JSON, depending on accept header preferences sent from client
// (default in absence of accept header is JSON)
var odataFormatters = ODataMediaTypeFormatters.Create();
config.Formatters.InsertRange(0, odataFormatters);
config.EnsureInitialized();
}
public static IEdmModel GetEdmModel()
{
ODataConventionModelBuilder builder = new ODataConventionModelBuilder();
builder.Namespace = "Demos";
builder.ContainerName = "DefaultContainer";
builder.EntitySet<CompanyApiModel>("Companies");
builder.EntitySet<EmployeeApiModel>("Employees");
var edmModel = builder.GetEdmModel();
return edmModel;
}
}
Figured out the problem. We were overriding the EnableQuery attribute somewhere in our code and calling it EnableMappedQuery and applying it to the controller. Thus instead of having [EnableQuery(PageSize = 10)] I should have had [EnableMappedQuery(PageSize = 10)].
EnableQuery Attribute do many works,
1. it will validate the queryoption for you.
2. it will apply the queryoption for you.
3. it can add some querysettings like PageSize.
Your scenario not working is because your GetCompanies is already applied the queryoption, so when EnableQuery get the result and apply the queryoption again, it fails, it can't find the expand property, my suggestion is just return original Company and let EnableQuery do the reset of work for you, ODataQueryOption in parameter is also not needed.
If you realy do some custom work in GetCompanies and don't need EnableQuery to apply for you, you can add PageSize in ODataQuerySettings when you call method ODataQueryOptions.ApplyTo(IQueryable, ODataQuerySettings).
Is it possible to specify an object as a parameter in MVC with default values in some way?
E.g.
public virtual ViewResult Index(RequirementFilters requirementFilters)
I'd like to initialize the values of a couple of parameters on RequirementFilters?
At the moment I am doing
public virtual ViewResult Index(int status=1, bool required =false)
I wanted to create a Filter Object so I could re-use it but I can't figure out way of setting defaults for the object in the Action Parameters.
Thanks
Graeme
You could create a custom ActionFilter attribute and create an instance of your Filter Object there. You can provide some properties through the custom attribute.
Here's an example:
public class DefaultQuerySettingsAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public string ParameterName { get; set; }
public Type SettingsType { get; set; }
public int Rows { get; set; }
public string SortColumn { get; set; }
public string SortOrder { get; set; }
public bool PagingEnabled { get; set; }
public DefaultQuerySettingsAttribute()
{
this.ParameterName = "settings";
var defaultSettings = new QuerySettings();
this.Rows = defaultSettings.Rows;
this.SortColumn = defaultSettings.SortColumn;
this.SortOrder = defaultSettings.SortOrder;
this.PagingEnabled = defaultSettings.PagingEnabled;
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext);
if (filterContext.ActionParameters.ContainsKey(this.ParameterName))
{
var querySettings = filterContext.ActionParameters[this.ParameterName] as QuerySettings;
if (querySettings == null || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(querySettings.SortColumn))
filterContext.ActionParameters[this.ParameterName] = this.GetQuerySettings();
}
}
private QuerySettings GetQuerySettings()
{
var querySettings = (QuerySettings)Activator.CreateInstance(SettingsType ?? typeof(QuerySettings));
querySettings.Rows = Rows;
querySettings.SortColumn = SortColumn;
querySettings.SortOrder = SortOrder;
querySettings.PagingEnabled = PagingEnabled;
return querySettings;
}
}
ParameterName is the name of the argument in the action method (requirementFilters in your case).
You can also specify actual type that will be instantiated by providing SettingsType.
Users sometimes prefer to see the defaults on screen, rather than allowing the system to hide the defaults internally.
A better way of having defaults will be to actually show the defaults on int UI, in the HTML by rendering it with together with the defaults. That way when someone posts the page, the defaults which you pre-rendered is also posted and binded to the model.
So try and see if you can render with defaults whatever for you are rendering and posted to the Index action.
Finally, if you can't do it that way, what is preventing you from initializing the properties with default values in the no-arg constructor while creating the object?
EDIT
Or you can use the C# language feature the null coalescent operator to implement defaults. Look here to read about it.
As long as you don't need to change the defaults per action, you can set them in the default constructor of the Model.