asp.net mvc renderaction - asp.net

I call the above line in my asp.net mvc view. How do i retrieve the dictionary values from the test controller?

You can pass information using ViewData e.g. ViewData["MyDictionary"] = myDictionary;

You can't. The point of RenderAction is to let the controller you're calling do what it normally would without you worrying about what's happening. Maybe a partial view might be better suited for you in your case, it's hard to say without seeing the big picture...

Related

Is it a good practice to access session data in view?

Which is better from design and coding point of view: accessing session data in the view directly or loading them in the controller and passing them to the view using a viewbag?
MVC wont really care if you do something in your controller or your views but i agree with shaftpolls for not hurting the mvc pattern. Since Session is already inside the ViewData wrapper, you can access it directly in the View.
Be aware, that the Session object should only contain simple, non-sensitive data like user picked language, or custom ui-colorsheme.
If you really need to use Session, you should get that data on the server side and then pass it to the View using Strongly Typed properties in a View Model rather than using the ViewBag.
So let's say you have a property on your view model which is of type IENumerable<SelectListItem> and inside your view you will use the strongly typed version of the Html.DropDownListFor helper to bind to the model this way:
#Html.DropDownListFor(x => x.ProductId, Model.Products)
The best thing to do is access the session in the controller. Why:
Performance. You have fine control of how to access the Session object. If you need to read just properties of the session, then specify that you need read-only access to the session, MVC won't block the session, you'll get more performance.
Pureness. In a pure MVC scenario, the view knows only about the model. So any value that you care about in your session must be passed as part of the model.

Why have a separate call to get Json?

I need to get some Json to the client side from the server and it's somewhat troublesome as almost all tutorials assume an Ajax call to a separate action to get the Json.
This led me to think that there must be some reason why it is done this way. In Asp.Net MVC we can pass a Model along with the view to get the information but we can't seem to easily pass a Json object. Instead you are supposed to make a separate call to get this information.
What if the Json info is known when the page is generated, why not generate it at the same time?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. While it's nice to hear of ways to get Json to the client, the question is actually whether there is a specific reason the Ajax call method is much more popular, like security or anything like that.
Can you put something like this into your view? (rough pseudo code, assuming using a Razor view)
< script >
var myJSON = { Field: #model.Field, Field2: #model.Field2 };
< /script >
Because you do not need both at the same time... on the first call will be to get html (the view of the data - represented by a view model), and any ajax calls will be to get the possibly updated data (json serialized view model).
No reason why you can't. You could use the javacript serializer to create a JSON string that drop on the page. You could also create an action that return the json string that you called from a script tag.
What you want if you're using KnockOut, would be the Mapping plugin that turns an ordinary JS object, like that generated above, into an observable ready for KnockOut to use. See here from info. http://knockoutjs.com/documentation/plugins-mapping.html
You can use content-negotiation by setting accept header. This is considered a best practice (and according to some RESTful).
This needs to be supported and implemented at server as well. ASP NET MVC does not make it easy to support content-negotiation and you have to implement it yourself by if-else or using ActionFilter and implementing action selector.

Is there an ASP MVC Equivalent for PHP's require_once()?

I'm wondering if there is an ASP.Net MVC equivalent to PHP's require_once() function.
Lets say I need to call RenderAction to a particular action twice. However, inside the view that is rendered from said action, I need to print out some init scripts but only once.
Is there an easy mechanism to do this?
Should a flag be set in the controller and then passed into the view?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Edit
Thanks for the responses. I know I can do this through the controller or temp data or some mechanism like that but wasn't sure if there was anything built into .NET MVC that would have done this for me automatically.
I am not aware of such equivalent.
Should a flag be set in the controller and then passed into the view?
That seems like a good way. The flag needs to be passed as argument to the controller action when using the RenderAction helper.

In ASP.NET MVC, Data exchange between Model and View is possible?

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...

asp.net mvc3 / razor view best practices

I am using in my views (asp mvc3/razor cshtml) references to the Request object (eg, #Request.Params["Name"]). Do you think this is a very bad practice? Should I rewrite the value in the controller Request.Params ["Name"] to ViewBag.Name and then use it in the view (#ViewBag.Name)?
Best practice is to use a model class. An instance of the model class is created or updated in your controller. Then the controller displays a strongly-typed view.
So I'd avoid direct access to the request from the view as well as the use of the view bag.
Should I rewrite the value in the controller Request.Params ["Name"] to ViewBag.Name and then use it in the view (#ViewBag.Name)?
Yes. You will avoid runtime errors if "Name" does not exist.
The IDE will not warn you of the NullReferenceException about to be thrown with the following code.
#Request.Params["Fake"].ToString()
Of course, you'll have to be careful about ViewBag.Fake being null as well.
I like to use the viewbag to store things not related to the model, for example if I have a dropdown containing locations. I like to store only the id of the selected location on the model and the locations in the viewbag, since is not needed to create a contact. I think that's the purpose of the viewbag.
For me the model is a bag or properties used in business operations, for example if I have a customer creation view using a NewCustomerModel, I don't wanna pollute my model with things like a IList<CustomerType> AND a SelectedCustomerTypeId property. I just want the second since is the one imma use to create the customer.

Resources