First of all, I have read this post and did not find the answer for my problem.
I am not sure if this is an aggregated Model class or an aggregated ViewModel class, but this is what I have:
In my WPF (with Prism) application, I have a view 'Filter Customers View' that connects to a service and requests a list of 'Customer' objects, based on a filter.
The list that is returned from the service is this :
List<CustomerDTO> FilteredCustomers;
And the CustomerDTO looks like this:
public class CustomerDTO
{
public Guid CustomerId;
public String Name;
public String Address;
public String PhoneNumber;
public OrderInfoDTO LastOrderInformation;
public List<OtherClass> ListOfSomething;
}
And the OrderInfoDTO looks like this:
public class OrderInfoDTO
{
public Guid OrderId;
public DateTime OrderDate;
public int NumberOfProducts;
public double TotalAmountSpent;
}
And the OtherClass looks like this:
public class OtherClass
{
public Guid Id;
public String SomeText;
}
As you can see - the customer might or might not have a 'Last Order',
I would like to wrap the 'CustomerDTO' object in a ViewModel,
so that I can bind it to the view.
This is what I thought of doing :
public class CustomerViewModel : NotificationObject
{
private CustomerDTO _customerDTO;
public CustomerViewModel(CustomerDTO customerDTO)
{
_customerDTO = customerDTO;
}
public Guid CustomerId
{
get { return _customerDTO.CustomerId; }
set { _customerDTO.CustomerId = value; RaisePropertyChanged("CustomerId "); }
}
public String Name
{
get { return _customerDTO.Name; }
set { _customerDTO.Name = value; RaisePropertyChanged("Name"); }
}
public String Address
{
get { return _customerDTO.Address; }
set { _customerDTO.Address = value; RaisePropertyChanged("Address"); }
}
public String PhoneNumber
{
get { return _customerDTO.PhoneNumber; }
set { _customerDTO.PhoneNumber= value; RaisePropertyChanged("PhoneNumber"); }
}
}
.
Questions:
First of all - is 'CustomerDTO' what is known as a Model ? And is 'OrderInfoDTO' also a Model ? and what about 'OtherClass' ?
How do I treat the 'OrderInfoDTO' in my CustomerViewModel class ? Do I create a 'ViewModel' for it also ? where do I create the 'OrderInfoDTO' view-model ??? What happens if now someone updates the customer and sets the 'OrderInfoDTO' value ?
How do I treat the list of 'OtherClass' in my CustomerViewModel class ? Do I create an ObservableCollection for it ? What happens if someone will want to delete an item in it or update an item in it or add an item to it ?
Think about it this way:
The View is your UI that you would bind elements from the View Model to using the {Binding Path=, Mode=TwoWay -- If you want to update based upon the user input
The Model is only the data, this could a record set, file, database records etc. So CustomerDTO and OrderInfoDTO are models.
The View Model is your link between the data (Model) and the UI (View). It will allow to you change the data so it's easier to present on the UI
You would need to use ObservableCollection in all instances where there's a list that could change in the background.
You don't need a view model for OrderInfoDTO unless you need a view to update that data. If you are presenting a CustomerDTO info with OrderInfoDTO in it, then making it a property of the CustomerDTO view model would be fine.
Related
im trying to make an app and got a slight problem. my structure looks like this:
public class BaseModel
{
[Key]
private int _Id;
public int Id {
get { return _Id; }
set { _Id = value; }
}
}
public class SupplierModel : BaseModel
{
[ForeginKey("CountryCode")] // This should map to say "se" or "no" or whatever in the CountryModel table
public virtual CountryModel Country;
}
public class CountryModel : BaseModel
{
private string _CountryCode;
[Key] // This should be another key in the table to get the actual country.
public string CountryCode {
get { return _CountryCode; }
set { _CountryCode = value; }
}
private string _CountryName;
public string CountryName {
get { return _CountryName; }
set { _CountryName = value; }
}
}
Now i want SupplierModel to link to CountryModel (Works fine by the Id) but i want it to be the country code to be the relationship not the Id between the Entities.
So accessing CountryModel.Country should map to the CountryModel table and pull out the one that matches the country model.
Hope i didnt mess it up totaly for you, hard to explain when i do not fully understand Entity framework and database relations .. trying to learn =)
I have a WPF MVVM application with a DataGrid bound to an ObservableCollection returned by DbSet<>.Local. The grid displays content from the database correctly, and changes to the grid change the ObservableCollection, but no changes are saved back to the database.
Context.cs
public class AppContext: DbContext
{
public AppContext() : base("name=DefaultConnection")
{
}
public DbSet<Field> Fields { get; set; }
}
ViewModel.cs
public class EditorViewModel : NotificationObject
{
private ObservableCollection<MyEntity> _myEntities;
private string _message;
public EditorViewModel()
{
var db = new AppContext();
db.MyEntities.Load();
this.MyEntities = db.MyEntities.Local;
}
public ObservableCollection<MyEntity> MyEntities
{
get
{
return _myEntities;
}
set
{
if (_myEntities != value)
{
_myEntities = value;
RaisePropertyChanged("MyEntities");
}
}
}
}
I had thought that changes to the ObservableCollection would automatically write back to the database? Or does SaveChanges need to be called somewhere?
So the answer to this is that using DbSet<>.Local keeps the ObservableCollection in sync with the context, you then just need to call SaveChanges on the context to write back to the database.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/data/jj592872.aspx
I have an MVC application that uses Entity Framework 5. In few places I have a code that creates or updates the entities and then have to perform some kind of operations on the updated data. Some of those operations require accessing navigation properties and I can't get them to refresh.
Here's the example (simplified code that I have)
Models
class User : Model
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
class Car : Model
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public Guid DriverId { get; set; }
public virtual User Driver { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public string DriverName
{
get { return this.Driver.Name; }
}
}
Controller
public CarController
{
public Create()
{
return this.View();
}
[HttpPost]
public Create(Car car)
{
if (this.ModelState.IsValid)
{
this.Context.Cars.Create(booking);
this.Context.SaveChanges();
// here I need to access some of the resolved nav properties
var test = booking.DriverName;
}
// error handling (I'm removing it in the example as it's not important)
}
}
The example above is for the Create method but I also have the same problem with Update method which is very similar it just takes the object from the context in GET action and stores it using Update method in POST action.
public virtual void Create(TObject obj)
{
return this.DbSet.Add(obj);
}
public virtual void Update(TObject obj)
{
var currentEntry = this.DbSet.Find(obj.Id);
this.Context.Entry(currentEntry).CurrentValues.SetValues(obj);
currentEntry.LastModifiedDate = DateTime.Now;
}
Now I've tried several different approaches that I googled or found on stack but nothing seems to be working for me.
In my latest attempt I've tried forcing a reload after calling SaveChanges method and requerying the data from the database. Here's what I've done.
I've ovewrite the SaveChanges method to refresh object context immediately after save
public int SaveChanges()
{
var rowsNumber = this.Context.SaveChanges();
var objectContext = ((IObjectContextAdapter)this.Context).ObjectContext;
objectContext.Refresh(RefreshMode.StoreWins, this.Context.Bookings);
return rowsNumber;
}
I've tried getting the updated object data by adding this line of code immediately after SaveChanges call in my HTTP Create and Update actions:
car = this.Context.Cars.Find(car.Id);
Unfortunately the navigation property is still null. How can I properly refresh the DbContext immediately after modifying the data?
EDIT
I forgot to originally mention that I know a workaround but it's ugly and I don't like it. Whenever I use navigation property I can check if it's null and if it is I can manually create new DbContext and update the data. But I'd really like to avoid hacks like this.
class Car : Model
{
[NotMapped]
public string DriverName
{
get
{
if (this.Driver == null)
{
using (var context = new DbContext())
{
this.Driver = this.context.Users.Find(this.DriverId);
}
}
return this.Driver.Name;
}
}
}
The problem is probably due to the fact that the item you are adding to the context is not a proxy with all of the necessary components for lazy loading. Even after calling SaveChanges() the item will not be converted into a proxied instance.
I suggest you try using the DbSet.Create() method and copy across all the values from the entity that you receive over the wire:
public virtual TObject Create(TObject obj)
{
var newEntry = this.DbSet.Create();
this.Context.Entry(newEntry).CurrentValues.SetValues(obj);
return newEntry;
}
UPDATE
If SetValues() is giving an issue then I suggest you try automapper to transfer the data from the passed in entity to the created proxy before Adding the new proxy instance to the DbSet. Something like this:
private bool mapCreated = false;
public virtual TObject Create(TObject obj)
{
var newEntry = this.DbSet.Create();
if (!mapCreated)
{
Mapper.CreateMap(obj.GetType(), newEntry.GetType());
mapCreated = true;
}
newEntry = Mapper.Map(obj, newEntry);
this.DbSet.Add(newEntry;
return newEntry;
}
I use next workaround: detach entity and load again
public T Reload<T>(T entity) where T : class, IEntityId
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)_dbContext).ObjectContext.Detach(entity);
return _dbContext.Set<T>().FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id == entity.Id);
}
I'm trying to get a repository pattern working with MVC2 and EF.
My problem is within the concrete repository. When I attempt to cast the EF query results as an IEnumerable collection of view-model entities:
Unable to cast object of type
'System.Data.Objects.ObjectQuery`1[Data_Service.MediaReleases]'
to type
'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[TestMVCWithFacory.Models.Entities.MediaReleaseModel]'.
I sense that's a bone-headed thing to try to do -- and it's something with Linq, and how deferred execution works, but I don't really understand the voodoo.
So what is it that I'm mis-understanding there, and how do I address it?
The view-model:
public class MediaReleaseModel
{
public string Headline { get; set; }
public string FullText { get; set; }
}
The repository interface:
public interface IMediaReleasesRepository
{
IEnumerable<MediaReleaseModel> MediaReleases { get;}
}
The concrete repository:
public class MediaReleaseRepository : IMediaReleasesRepository
{
private NewsEntities DataContext = new NewsEntities();
private IEnumerable<MediaReleases> _MRs;
public MediaReleaseRepository()
{
_MRs = from art in DataContext.MediaReleases select art;
}
public IEnumerable<MediaReleaseModel> MediaReleases
{
get { return (IEnumerable<MediaReleaseModel>)_MRs; }
}
}
Controller:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private IMediaReleasesRepository _MRRepository;
public HomeController()
{
_MRRepository= new MediaReleaseRepository();
}
public ViewResult index()
{
return View(_MRRepository.MediaReleases.ToList());
}
}
You're trying to cast collection of MediaReleases to collection of MediaReleaseModels. If MediaReleaseModel is a separate class, this can't be done just by casting. Generally, cast will succeed only in one inheritance chain or when conversion operators are defined, which is not the case here.
What you need here is rewriting the MediaRelease fields to you model object (it can be automated using tools like AutoMapper), i.e. with help of LINQ:
public IEnumerable<MediaReleaseModel> MediaReleases
{
get
{
return _MRs.Select(x => new MediaReleaseModel()
{
Prop1 = x.Prop1
/* etc. */
});
}
}
One suggestion at the side: it's better not to have logic like that in constructor, creating objects should be cheap operation and it's a bit strange when the data are fetched before they are really needed.
I am learning some good code practice that's why i was going through some code, some thing i could not understand in it. It has made property in a separate class for each entity like in userClass it has property
#region public properties
private int uid;
public int userId
{
get { return uid; }
set { uid = value; }
}
private string uName;
public string userName
{
get { return uName; }
set { uName = value; }
}
private string pwd;
public string password
{
get { return pwd; }
// set { pwd = value; }
}
private string uAddress;
public string userAddress
{
get { return uAddress; }
set { uAddress = value; }
}
private string fName;
public string firstName
{
get { return fName; }
set { fName = value; }
}
private string lName;
public string lastName
{
get { return lName; }
set { lName = value; }
}
private string uPhone;
public string userPhone
{
get { return uPhone; }
set { uPhone = value; }
}
private string uMobile;
public string userMobile
{
get { return uMobile; }
set { uMobile = value; }
}
private int secretQuestion;
public int securityQuestion
{
get { return secretQuestion; }
set { secretQuestion = value; }
}
private string userAnswer;
public string answer
{
get { return userAnswer; }
set { userAnswer = value; }
}
#endregion
and from the business logic class it uses the property instead of using directly any entity's attribute name, but i am confuse whats there need to make a property like this?
other then this it has got enums for database column name which has a clear reason behind this that if in near future we have to change the database table's fields name then we don't have to change through out the whole business logic class and we can make changes to enum directly, But what is there use of creating property like this please elaborate me on this
Are you really asking why it uses properties instead of having public fields?
Fields are an implementation detail - they're how data is stored, which shouldn't be something the outside world cares about, at least for 99% of types. Properties are part of the contract that a type has in terms of its API - the implementation is up to the type. In other words, it's a matter of encapsulation. Properties can be expressed in interfaces, as abstract methods etc, precisely because they keep the contract and the implementation separate.
Additionally, properties make databinding, debugging and various other things simpler. I have an article about why properties matter, which you may find useful.
Having said all of this, those properties are implemented in a tedious way - and they don't obey .NET naming conventions. I would have written them as:
public int UserId { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
// etc
Properties can be defined on Interfaces, but member fields cannot. So if you needed to refactor this class to a class that implements an interface, you can put the properties on the interface (and then have other classes that implement them as well.)
Some similar questions:
Public Fields versus Automatic Properties
Property vs public field.
In additional to above: Actually you can easily decide public field or property by yourself. It is quite easier to understand that:
(1) Name is a property of class Person
(2) Speed is a property of class Plane
(3) Empty is a public field of class String. If you say String has a property named Empty, it's really weird. And String has a property Length is easy to understand.