One example is described here. But the author apparently forgot to include the code for download.
Another example is shown here. However, this one doesn't quite work (as described in comments).
How do you do this correctly?
The second example you found almost works, it's just missing a little bit. All that was needed was 2 methods in the main control.
Add this code to the AppointmentControl.cs file and it will work.
protected override object SaveViewState()
{
if (appointments != null)
return appointments.SaveViewState();
return null;
}
protected override void LoadViewState(object savedState)
{
appointments = new AppointmentCollection();
appointments.LoadViewState(savedState);
}
The code in the example site was pretty decent. It implemented all of the interfaces it should have and did a pretty good job. Where it fell apart was that, despite having all of the code it needed in the abstract bits, that didn't matter because the interfaces weren't referenced in the places they needed to be.
The collection classes being used had nothing "special" about them, other than implementing a few interfaces. The framework won't automatically call these methods. The framework will however call the overridden methods I wrote above, which you need to implement in order for your control to save the elements in the collection. As long as you call them, everything will work.
DanHerbert got it. Darn, I spent hours on this too! In the process of trying to answer this question I came up with a simplified generic StateManagedCollection that inherits from the framework's built-in StateManagedCollection, based on the version here. Maybe you'll find it useful. Full source code of my sample project available here.
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Specialized;
using System.Security.Permissions;
using System.Web;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Web.UI;
namespace Web
{
public abstract class StateManagedCollection<T> : StateManagedCollection, IList<T>, ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>
where T : class, IStateManagedItem, new()
{
protected override object CreateKnownType(int index)
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
}
protected override Type[] GetKnownTypes()
{
return new Type[] { typeof(T) };
}
protected override void SetDirtyObject(object o)
{
((IStateManagedItem)o).SetDirty();
}
#region IList<T> Members
public int IndexOf(T item)
{
return ((IList)this).IndexOf(item);
}
public void Insert(int index, T item)
{
((IList)this).Insert(index, item);
if (((IStateManager)this).IsTrackingViewState)
{
this.SetDirty();
}
}
public void RemoveAt(int index)
{
((IList)this).RemoveAt(index);
if (((IStateManager)this).IsTrackingViewState)
{
this.SetDirty();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get { return (T)this[index]; }
set { this[index] = value; }
}
#endregion
#region ICollection<T> Members
public void Add(T item)
{
((IList)this).Add(item);
this.SetDirty();
}
public bool Contains(T item)
{
return ((IList)this).Contains(item);
}
public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex)
{
((IList)this).CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
}
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return false; }
}
public bool Remove(T item)
{
if (((IList)this).Contains(item))
{
((IList)this).Remove(item);
return true;
}
return false;
}
#endregion
#region IEnumerable<T> Members
IEnumerator<T> IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
#endregion
#region IEnumerable Members
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return ((IList)this).GetEnumerator();
}
#endregion
}
}
I have used the code above the provided solution is ok but i was getting exception - "StackOverflow " cool :) the issue is reproducible by adding a few child items in the aspx page and switch to Design view to design view of Visual studio ( Visual Studio just restart and nobody knows what is going on....).
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return ((IList)this).GetEnumerator();
}
So, I guess I figured it out just change the implementation of the above method like this:
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
// return ((IList)this).GetEnumerator();
return this.GetEnumerator();
}
Hope this will help someone else like me :) just not to loose few hours to get it work with the designer of VS
Related
When I navigate from page A to page B, I need to remove page A.
How can I do this with Prism's navigation service in Xamarin Forms?
There are a few scenarios that people run into on this one.
As a common example say you have a LoginPage, and once the user successfully logs in you want to Navigate to the MainPage. Your code might look something like the following:
public class App : PrismApplication
{
protected override async void OnInitialized()
{
await NavigationService.NavigateAsync("LoginPage");
}
protected override void RegisterTypes()
{
Container.RegisterTypeForNavigation<LoginPage>();
Container.RegisterTypeForNavigation<MainPage>();
}
}
public class LoginPageViewModel : BindableBase
{
public DelegateCommand LoginCommand { get; }
private async void OnLoginCommandExecuted()
{
// Do some validation
// Notice the Absolute URI which will reset the navigation stack
// to start with MainPage
await _navigationService.NavigateAsync("/MainPage");
}
}
Now if what you're looking for is some flow where your navigation stack looks like MainPage/ViewA and what you want is MainPage/ViewB and you don't want to reinitialize MainPage, then this is something that we are currently evaluating and wanting to improve this so you could do something like _navigationService.NavigateAsync("../ViewB"). In the mean time what I might suggest is something like this:
public class ViewAViewModel : BindableBase
{
public DelegateCommand ViewBCommand { get; }
private async void OnViewBCommandExecuted()
{
var parameters = new NavigationParameters
{
{ "navigateTo", "ViewB" }
};
await _navigationService.GoBackAsync(parameters);
}
}
public class MainPageViewModel : BindableBase, INavigatedAware
{
public async void OnNavigatingTo(NavigationParameters parameters)
{
if(parameters. GetNavigationMode() == NavigationMode.Back &&
parameters.TryGetValue("navigateTo", out string navigateTo))
{
await _navigationService.NavigateAsync(navigateTo);
return;
}
}
}
Given: "NavigationPage/ViewA/ViewB/ViewC/ViewD"
Navigate from ViewD with:
NavigationService.NavigateAsync("../../../ViewE");
Results in: "NavigationPage/ViewA/ViewE"
Referred from here
Need Prism >= 7.0
Another approach would be to have your page implement INavigationAware and in the OnNavigatedFrom, call Navigatin.RemovePage(this).
I do it that way, it's simpler.
navigationService.NavigateAsync("../PageB");
I am using Prims 7.0.0.396.
How can I access some ViewBag properties across all my views? I want to have some information like current user name, etc accessible everywhere, but without having to to specifically define the properties in each ActionResult method on my project
The best and straight forward way to accomplish your requirement is to make a Custom Base Controller and inherit your Controller from this Base Controller.
public class MyBaseController : Controller
{
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
ViewBag.someThing = "someThing"; //Add whatever
base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext);
}
}
Now instead of inheriting Controller class,inherit MyBaseController in your Controller as shown :-
public class MyOtherController : MyBaseController
{
public ActionResult MyOtherAction()
{
//Your Stuff
return View();
}
//Other ActionResults
}
You can achieve what you want in a number of ways, each one with their pros and cons.
1. With a Base Class
public class BaseController : Controller
{
protected override ViewResult View(IView view, object model)
{
this.ViewBag.MyProperty = "value";
return base.View(view, model);
}
}
PROS: Quite simple to implement, few lines of code, highly reusable, can be opted-out at will (see comments below).
CONS: Being forced to derive all your controllers from a base class might have some impact, especially if you have a lot of controllers already in place and/or you need to derive them from other base classes.
2. With a Module
public class ViewBagPropertyModule: Module
{
protected override void AttachToComponentRegistration(IComponentRegistry cr,
IComponentRegistration reg)
{
Type limitType = reg.Activator.LimitType;
if (typeof(Controller).IsAssignableFrom(limitType))
{
registration.Activated += (s, e) =>
{
dynamic viewBag = ((Controller)e.Instance).ViewBag;
viewBag.MyProperty= "value";
};
}
}
}
PROS: None I’m aware of.
CONS: None I’m aware of (except being a bit counterintuitive).
3. With a RegisterController Hook
builder.RegisterControllers(asm)
.OnActivated(e => {
dynamic viewBag = ((Controller)e.Instance).ViewBag;
viewBag.MyProperty = "value";
});
PROS: Fast, secure, reusable: ideal for any IoC design pattern.
CONS: Not always suited for small project and/or simple websites: if you’re not using IoC you’re often not using RegisterController at all.
4. With an ActionFilter attribute
public class MyPropertyActionFilter : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnResultExecuting(ResultExecutingContext filterContext)
{
filterContext.Controller.ViewBag.MyProperty = "value";
}
}
and then in your Global.asax.cs file:
protected void Application_Start()
{
AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();
GlobalFilters.Filters.Add(new MyPropertyActionFilter(), 0);
}
PROS: Easily the less-obtrusive method amongst those mentioned.
CONS: None I’m aware of.
I also wrote this article on my blog explaining all the above methods.
One way: Create a custom attribute, then you can apply it globally in the FilterConfig. Then you don't have to do anything in your controllers.
public class MyCustomViewActionFilter : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
dynamic ViewBag = filterContext.Controller.ViewBag;
ViewBag.Id = "123";
ViewBag.Name = "Bob";
}
}
In App_Start/FilterConfig.cs:
public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)
{
filters.Add(new MyCustomViewActionFilter());
}
Another way if all you need is the User information. You can add the following to the top of your view:
#using Microsoft.AspNet.Identity
Then access your User Name using the following syntax:
#User.Identity.GetUserName()
You can also override the IPrincipal implementation and provide your own properties and methods to add more information you need to render.
UPDATE: looking at MVC 6 in Asp.Net vNext this is actually baked into the framework. http://www.asp.net/vnext/overview/aspnet-vnext/vc#inj
My current solution:
Create a base controller with all needed properties (very useful and advisable).
public abstract class BaseController : Controller {
public string MyProperty { get; set; }
}
Inherits all your controllers, from the base controller.
public class MyController : BaseController {
//you can read your property here
}
In your views, add this line just after the "#model" sentence:
#{ BaseController ctr = ViewContext.Controller as BaseController; }
Now, you can use the property in your view, without populate the ViewBag, without the need of check and cast the ViewBag values, etc.
In the view, you can use an simple inline expression:
#(ctr.MyProperty)
Or do some magic logic...
#{
if(ctr.MyProperty == "whatelse") {
//do ...
}
}
Easy, fast and comfortable.
For Net Core 5 Mvc app:
Create a ActionFilter class first:
public class GlobalSettingFilter : IActionFilter
{
private IConfiguration configuration;
//For example will get data from the configuration object
public GlobalSettingFilter(IConfiguration configuration)
{
this.configuration = configuration;
}
public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
//Populate the ViewData or ViewBag from your data source
(context.Controller as Controller).ViewData["helpUrl"] = configuration.GetValue<String>("helpUrl");
}
public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context){}
}
Then, on Startup add:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.AddControllersWithViews(options =>
{
options.Filters.Add(new GlobalSettingFilter(Configuration));
});
}
Just for the sake of completeness, to get the configuration object use:
public class Startup
{
public Startup(IConfiguration configuration)
{
Configuration = configuration;
}
public IConfiguration Configuration { get; }
...
}
You can create a base controller that is inherited by all of your controllers, and in this controller (the base one) add:
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
// Fill your global viewbag variables here
}
Rather simple question regarding entity framework and how to consume the objectcontext.
In a asp.net webform application I am implementing most of data getters in a data class and trying to determine if its better (in a generic sense of better) to have a private context for the entire class or declare a context in each of the methods.
Example 1:
public class Data
{
private MyEntity context = new MyEntity();
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
return context.Customer.Single();
}
public Order GetOrder()
{
return context.Order.Single();
}
}
Or Example 2:
public class Data
{
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
using (MyEntity ctx = new MyEntity())
{
return context.Customer.Single();
}
}
public Order GetOrder()
{
using (MyEntity ctx = new MyEntity())
{
return context.Order.Single();
}
}
}
Personally im a big fan of using a shared context across your whole post back, however neither of these scenarios really achieve this. My personal preference is to use a dependency injection container such as ninject to manage the lifecycle of your EF context. This means that you can make your whole postback transactional.
in terms of implementation I would go for soemthing like the following:
public class Data
{
private MyContext _context;
public Data(MyContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
return _context.Customer.Single();
}
public Order GetOrder()
{
return _context.Order.Single();
}
}
with a binding similar to:
Bind<MyContext>().ToSelf().InRequestScope();
I am going though the Apress ASP.NET MVC 3 book and trying to ensure I create Unit Tests for everything possible but after spending a good part of a day trying to work out why edit's wouldn't save (see this SO question) I wanted to create a unit test for this.
I have worked out that I need to create a unit test for the following class:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private EFDbContext context = new EFDbContext();
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
context.Products.Add(product);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
context.Products.Remove(product);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
public class EFDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
I am using Ninject.MVC3 and Moq and have created several unit tests before (while working though the previously mentioned book) so am slowly getting my head around it. I have already (hopefully correctly) created a constructor method to enable me to pass in _context:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private EFDbContext _context;
// constructor
public EFProductRepository(EFDbContext context) {
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return _context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
_context.Products.Add(product);
} else {
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
_context.Products.Remove(product);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
}
BUT this is where I start to have trouble... I believe I need to create an Interface for EFDbContext (see below) so I can replace it with a mock repo for the tests BUT it is built on the class DbContext:
public class EFDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
from System.Data.Entity and I can't for the life of me work out how to create an interface for it... If I create the following interface I get errors due to lack of the method .SaveChanges() which is from the DbContext class and I can't build the interface using "DbContext" like the `EFDbContext is as it's a class not an interface...
using System;
using System.Data.Entity;
using SportsStore.Domain.Entities;
namespace SportsStore.Domain.Concrete {
interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
}
The original Source can be got from the "Source Code/Downloads" on this page encase I have missed something in the above code fragments (or just ask and I will add it).
I have hit the limit of what I understand and no mater what I search for or read I can't seem to work out how I get past this. Please help!
The problem here is that you have not abstracted enough. The point of abstractions/interfaces is to define a contract that exposes behavior in a technology-agnostic way.
In other words, it is a good first step that you created an interface for the EFDbContext, but that interface is still tied to the concrete implementation - DbSet (DbSet).
The quick fix for this is to expose this property as IDbSet instead of DbSet. Ideally you expose something even more abstract like IQueryable (though this doesn't give you the Add() methods, etc.). The more abstract, the easier it is to mock.
Then, you're left with fulfilling the rest of the "contract" that you rely on - namely the SaveChanges() method.
Your updated code would look like this:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private IEFDbContext context;
public EFProductRepository(IEFDbContext context) {
this.context = context;
}
...
}
public interface IEFDbContext {
IDbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}
BUT... the main question you have to ask is: what are you trying to test (conversely, what are you trying to mock out/avoid testing)? In other words: are you trying to validate how your application works when something is saved, or are you testing the actual saving.
If you're just testing how your application works and don't care about actually saving to the database, I'd consider mocking at a higher level - the IProductRepository. Then you're not hitting the database at all.
If you want to make sure that your objects actually get persisted to the database, then you should be hitting the DbContext and don't want to mock that part after all.
Personally, I consider both of those scenarios to be different - and equally important - and I write separate tests for each of them: one to test that my application does what it's supposed to do, and another to test that the database interaction works.
I guess your current code looks something like this (I put in the interface):
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private IEFDbContext _context;
// constructor
public EFProductRepository(IEFDbContext context) {
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return _context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
_context.Products.Add(product);
} else {
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
**_context.SaveChanges();**
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
_context.Products.Remove(product);
**_context.SaveChanges();**
}
}
public class EFDbContext : DbContext, IEFDbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
The problem is EFProductRepository now expects an object implementing the IEFDbContext interface, but this interface does not define the SaveChanges method used at the lines I put between the asteriskes so the compiler starts complaining.
Defining the SaveChanges method on the IEFDbContext interface solves your problem:
public interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}
I am trying to implement a mvvm design pattern for xbap application But unable to carry out simple text binding.
Following is the definition of my DemoViewModel.cs,
class DemoViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
string name;
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Name");
}
}
public DemoViewModel()
{
Name = "test";
}
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
if (this.PropertyChanged != null)
{
this.PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
I am binding the view to viewmodel using code behind of view,
public DemoView()
{
InitializeComponent();
DataContext = new DemoViewModel();
}
Following is the binding definition for text box present in view,
I appears that you have everything hooked up correctly. During execution, take a look at you 'Output' window and see if it gives you any warnings on you Binding. Also, try to simplify your xaml a bit to the following and see if this helps:
<TextBox Text="{Binding Name, Mode=TwoWay}"/>
Based on your comment, to JSPrang's answer, I know whats wrong =)
XBAP is missing permissions to use reflection, and can therefore only bind to public classes, unless run in full trust.