We Keep Coding

fluentvalidation error message contains c# property name and not client side json property name?

I have a C# WebApi project and i am using FluentValidation.WebApi package for validation of client inputs.
Below is my model class code which has C# property named "IsPremium". This same property has json name "isLuxury" for all the clients.
[Serializable, JsonObject, Validator(typeof(ProductValidator))]
public class Product
{
[JsonProperty("isLuxury")]
public bool? IsPremium { get; set; }
}
And my validator class looks like:
public class ProductValidator : AbstractValidator<Product>
{
public ProductValidator()
{
RuleFor(product => product.isPremium).NotNull();
}
}
So for a request like:
http://localhost:52664/api/product
Request body:{
"isLuxury": ""
}
I get following error:
{
"Message": "The request is invalid.",
"ModelState": {
"product.isPremium": [
"'is Premium' must not be empty."
]
}
}
Fluent here is picking C# property name which makes no sense to the client as it knows it as "isLuxury". How can i force fluent to pick names from json property and not from c# property to give better validations like "'isLuxury' must not be empty."?
If not possible, i will have to rename all my C# properties to have same name as these json exposed to all the clients. Please suggest if you have any other better way to solve this problem.

Modify the validator class with the OverridePropertyName method
public class ProductValidator : AbstractValidator<Product>
{
public ProductValidator()
{
RuleFor(product => product.isPremium).NotNull().OverridePropertyName("isLuxury");
}
}
Referring: https://github.com/JeremySkinner/FluentValidation/wiki/d.-Configuring-a-Validator#overriding-the-default-property-name
Alternatively you can call the WithName method which does a similar thing. If you want to completely rename the property, I'd use the OverridePropertyName method.

As Sahil said, use the OverridePropertyName method. If you also use it in conjunction with this, it automatically figures out the JSON property name:
private string GetJsonPropertyName<T>(string propertyName)
{
string jsonPropertyName =
typeof(T).GetProperties()
.Where(p => p.Name == propertyName)
.Select(p => p.GetCustomAttribute<JsonPropertyAttribute>())
.Select(jp => jp.PropertyName)
.FirstOrDefault();
if (null == jsonPropertyName)
{
throw new ArgumentException($"Type {nameof(T)} does not contain a property named {propertyName}");
}
return jsonPropertyName;
}
Which is then used like this:
RuleFor(product => product.IsPremium)
.NotNull()
.OverridePropertyName(
GetJsonPropertyName<Product>(nameof(Product.IsPremium))
);

Find a generic DbSet in a DbContext dynamically

I know this question has already been asked but I couldn't find an answer that satisfied me. What I am trying to do is to retrieve a particular DbSet<T> based on its type's name.
I have the following :
[assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("MyDllAssemblyName")]
[assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("MyCallingAssemblyName")]
class MyDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<ModelA> A { get; set; }
public DbSet<ModelB> B { get; set; }
public dynamic GetByName_SwitchTest(string name) {
switch (name) {
case "A": return A;
case "B": return B;
}
}
public dynamic GetByName_ReflectionTest(string fullname)
{
Type targetType = Type.GetType(fullname);
var model = GetType()
.GetRuntimeProperties()
.Where(o =>
o.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
o.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(DbSet<>) &&
o.PropertyType.GenericTypeArguments.Contains(targetType))
.FirstOrDefault();
if (null != model)
return model.GetValue(this);
return null;
}
}
I have no trouble getting the type itself whether it is via a simple switch or reflection. I need however to return the type as a dynamic since I do not know what DbSet type it will be.
Then somewhere else in the same assembly, I use it this way :
// MyDbContext MyDbContextInstance..
var model = MyDbContextInstance.GetByName_SwitchTest("A");
var record1 = model.FirstOrDefault(); // It crashes here with RunTimeBinderException
At this point model contains an instance of a InternalDbSet<ModelA> type. From there, any use I do with the model object I get a RunTimeBinderException :
'Microsoft.Data.Entity.Internal.InternalDbSet' does not contain a definition for 'FirstOrDefault'
Investigating on the web, I found a blog post explaining that (dixit his blog) :
the reason the call to FirstOrDefault() fails is that the type
information of model is not available at runtime. The reason it's not
available is because anonymous types are not public. When the method
is returning an instance of that anonymous type, it's returning a
System.Object which references an instance of an anonymous type - a
type whose info isn't available to the main program.
And then he points that a solution :
The solution is actually quite simple. All we have to do is open up
AssemplyInfo.cs of the ClassLibrary1 project and add the following
line to it: [assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("assembly-name")]
I did try this solution on my code but it doesn't work. For info I have an asp.net 5 solution with two assemblies running on dnx dotnet46. An app and a dll containing all my models and DbContext. All the concerned calls I do are located on the dll though.
Does this solution have any chance to work ?
Am I missing something ?
Any pointers would be greatly appreciated ?
Thanks in advance
[EDIT]
I have tried to return IQueryable<dynamic> rather than dynamic and I could do the basic query model.FirstOrDefault(); but above all I'd like to be able to filter on a field too :
var record = model.FirstOrDefault(item => item.MyProperty == true);

So how did I do it when I am not aware of <T> during compile time.
First need to get the type as DbContext.Set method returns a non-generic DbSet instance for access to entities of the given type in the context and the underlying store.
public virtual DbSet Set(Type entityType)
Note here argument is the type of entity for which a set should be returned.And set for the given entity type is the return value.
var type = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes().FirstOrDefault(t => t.Name == <Pass your table name>);
now once I have this type
if(type != null)
{
DbSet context = context.Set(type);
}
Or a one liner would be
DbSet mySet = context.Set(Type.GetType("<Your Entity Name>"));

*Disclaimer: This response doesn't give a stricto sensu answer to my question. It is rather a different approach to resolve my own problem. I am aware this is a specific example for a given situation that will not work for everyone. I am posting this approach in the hope it helps someone but will not mark it as the answer as I am still hoping for a real solution.
To start with, let's accept the fact that the only useful information we can get out of the current code is whether a record exists or not.. Any attempt of a dynamic queries after that would give the RuntimeBinderException.
Then let's continue with another fact; DbContext.Add(object) and DbContext.Update(object) are not template based so we can use them to save our models ( Instead of db.A.Add() or db.A.Update() )
In my own situation, no more is required to work out a procedure
Define models a little differently
To start with, I need a field that is retrievable across all my models which should obviously be a way to identify a unique record.
// IModel give me a reliable common field to all my models ( Fits my DB design maybe not yours though )
interface IModel { Guid Id { get; set; } }
// ModelA inherit IModel so that I always have access to an 'Id'
class ModelA : IModel {
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public int OtherField { get; set; }
}
// ModelB inherit IModel so that I always have access to an 'Id'
class ModelB : IModel {
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string WhateverOtherField { get; set; }
}
Re-purpose the dynamic queries a bit to do something we know works
I haven't found a way to do smart query dynamically, so instead I know I can reliably identify a record and know if it exists or not.
class MyDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<ModelA> A { get; set; }
public DbSet<ModelB> B { get; set; }
// In my case, this method help me to know the next action I need to do
// The switch/case option is not pretty but might have better performance
// than Reflection. Anyhow, this is one's choice.
public bool HasRecord_SwitchTest(string name) {
switch (name) {
case "A": return A.AsNoTracking().Any(o => o.Id == id);
case "B": return B.AsNoTracking().Any(o => o.Id == id);
}
return false;
}
// In my case, this method help me to know the next action I need to do
public bool HasRecord_ReflectionTest(string fullname)
{
Type targetType = Type.GetType(fullname);
var model = GetType()
.GetRuntimeProperties()
.Where(o =>
o.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
o.PropertyType.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(DbSet<>) &&
o.PropertyType.GenericTypeArguments.Contains(targetType))
.FirstOrDefault();
if (null != model)
return (bool)model.GetValue(this).AsNoTracking().Any(o => o.Id == id);
return false;
}
// Update and save immediately - simplified for example
public async Task<bool> UpdateDynamic(object content)
{
EntityEntry entry = Update(content, GraphBehavior.SingleObject);
return 1 == await SaveChangesAsync(true);
}
// Insert and save immediately - simplified for example
public async Task<bool> InsertDynamic(object content)
{
EntityEntry entry = Add(content, GraphBehavior.SingleObject);
return 1 == await SaveChangesAsync(true);
}
}
A little bit of plumbing to give a sense to my situation
Next, what I needed to do with that dynamic queries was a way to replicate data from a server down to my client. ( I have omitted a big chunk of the architecture to simplify this example )
class ReplicationItem
{
public ReplicationAction Action { get; set; } // = Create, Update, Delete
public string ModelName { get; set; } // Model name
public Guid Id { get; set; } // Unique identified across whole platform
}
Connecting the bits.
Now, here's the routine that connects the bits
public async void ProcessReplicationItem(ReplicationItem replicationItem)
{
using (var db = new MyDbContext())
{
// Custom method that attempts to get remote value by Model Name and Id
// This is where I get the strongly typed object
var remoteRecord = await TryGetAsync(replicationItem.ModelName, replicationItem.Id);
bool hasRemoteRecord = remoteRecord.Content != null;
// Get to know if a local copy of this record exists.
bool hasLocalRecord = db.HasRecord_ReflectionTest(replicationItem.ModelName, replicationItem.Id);
// Ensure response is valid whether it is a successful get or error is meaningful ( ie. NotFound )
if (remoteRecord.Success || remoteRecord.ResponseCode == System.Net.HttpStatusCode.NotFound)
{
switch (replicationItem.Action)
{
case ReplicationAction.Create:
{
if (hasRemoteRecord)
{
if (hasLocalRecord)
await db.UpdateDynamic(remoteRecord.Content);
else
await db.InsertDynamic(remoteRecord.Content);
}
// else - Do nothing
break;
}
case ReplicationAction.Update:
[etc...]
}
}
}
}
// Get record from server and with 'response.Content.ReadAsAsync' type it
// already to the appropriately
public static async Task<Response> TryGetAsync(ReplicationItem item)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(item.ModelName))
{
throw new ArgumentException("Missing a model name", nameof(item));
}
if (item.Id == Guid.Empty)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Missing a primary key", nameof(item));
}
// This black box, just extrapolate a uri based on model name and id
// typically "api/ModelA/{the-guid}"
string uri = GetPathFromMessage(item);
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
client.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://localhost:12345");
HttpResponseMessage response = await client.GetAsync(uri);
if (response.IsSuccessStatusCode)
{
return new Response()
{
Content = await response.Content.ReadAsAsync(Type.GetType(item.ModelName)),
Success = true,
ResponseCode = response.StatusCode
};
}
else
{
return new Response()
{
Success = false,
ResponseCode = response.StatusCode
};
}
}
}
public class Response
{
public object Content { get; set; }
public bool Success { get; set; }
public HttpStatusCode ResponseCode { get; set; }
}
ps: I am still interested in a real answer, so please keep posting for other answer if you have a real one to share.

You could use this to get the DBSet for a specific type:
public object GetByType(DbContextcontext, Type type) {
var methode = _context.GetType().GetMethod("Set", types: Type.EmptyTypes);
if (methode == null) {
return null;
}
return methode.MakeGenericMethod(type).Invoke(_context, null);
}

Access Servicstack.net session in validator

How can I access a ServiceStack.net session in my validation code?
public class UserSettingsValidator : AbstractValidator<UserSettingsRequest>
{
public UserSettingsValidator()
{
RuleFor(x => x.UserId)
.SetValidator(new PositiveIntegerValidator())
.SetValidator(new UserAccessValidator(session.UserId)); //<-- I need to pass the UserID from the session here
}
}
In the Service Implementation I just do:
var session = base.SessionAs<UserSession>();
but this does not work for my abstract validator.
Thanks!
Edit: this is version 3.9.71.0

I assume you are just using the ValidationFeature plugin, as most do. If that's the case, then I don't think it is possible. Ultimately the ValidationFeature is a plugin which uses a RequestFilter.
I wanted to do something similar before too, then realised it wasn't possible.
The RequestFilter is run before the ServiceRunner. See the order of operations guide here.
What this means to you is your populated request DTO reaches your service, and the validation feature's request filter will try validate your request, before it has even created the ServiceRunner.
The ServiceRunner is where an instance of your service class becomes active. It is your service class instance that will be injected with your UserSession object.
So effectively you can't do any validation that relies on the session at this point.
Overcomplicated ?:
It is possible to do validation in your service method, and you could create a custom object that would allow you pass the session along with the object you want to validate. (See next section). But I would ask yourself, are you overcomplicating your validation?
For a simple check of the request UserId matching the session's UserId, presumably you are doing this so the user can only make changes to their own records; Why not check in the service's action method and throw an Exception? I am guessing people shouldn't be changing this Id, so it's not so much a validation issue, but more a security exception. But like I say, maybe your scenario is different.
public class SomeService : Service
{
public object Post(UserSettingsRequest request) // Match to your own request
{
if(request.UserId != Session.UserId)
throw new Exception("Invalid UserId");
}
}
Validation in the Service Action:
You should read up on using Fluent Validators. You can call the custom validator yourself in your service method.
// This class allows you to add pass in your session and your object
public class WithSession<T>
{
public UserSession Session { get; set; }
public T Object { get; set; }
}
public interface IUserAccessValidator
{
bool ValidUser(UserSession session);
}
public class UserAccessValidator : IUserAccessValidator
{
public bool ValidUser(UserSession session)
{
// Your validation logic here
// session.UserId
return true;
}
}
public class UserSettingsValidator : AbstractValidator<WithSession<UserSettingsRequest>>
{
public IUserAccessValidator UserAccessValidator { get; set; }
public UserSettingsValidator()
{
// Notice check now uses .Object to access the object within
RuleFor(x => x.Object.UserId)
.SetValidator(new PositiveIntegerValidator());
// Custom User Access Validator check, passing the session
RuleFor(x => x.Session).Must(x => UserAccessValidator.ValidUser(x));
}
}
Then to actually use the validator in your service:
public class SomeService : Service
{
// Validator with be injected, you need to registered it in the IoC container.
public IValidator<WithSession<UserSettingsRequest>> { get; set; }
public object Post(UserSettingsRequest request) // Match to your own request
{
// Combine the request with the current session instance
var requestWithSession = new WithSession<UserSettingsRequest> {
Session = this.Session,
Object = request
};
// Validate the request
ValidationResult result = this.Validator.Validate(requestWithSession);
if(!result.IsValid)
{
throw result.ToException();
}
// Request is valid
// ... more logic here
return result;
}
}
I hope this helps. Note: code is untested

It appears that after reading from a bunch of people experiencing similar problems, then many hours of playing with several solutions based on the SS4 Cookbook etc, this is a problem that is already solved:
https://forums.servicestack.net/t/blaz-miheljak-355-feb-3-2015/176/2
Implement the IRequiresRequest interface on your validator, and voila.

Fluent Validation rules, subsets and nesting

Given a validator class that looks like this
public class SomeValidator : AbstractValidator<SomeObject>
{
public SomeValidator(){
RuleSet("First",
() => {
RuleFor(so => so.SomeMember).SetValidator(new SomeMemberValidator())
});
RuleSet("Second",
() => ... Code Does Not Matter ... );
RuleSet("Third",
() => ... Code Does Not Matter ... );
}
}
And another to do the inner member validation
public class SomeMemberValidator: AbstractValidator<SomeMember>
{
public SomeValidator(){
RuleSet("Fourth",
() => {
... Code Does Not Matter ...
});
}
}
Question is, I want to run specific rulesets: "First", "Second", and "Fourth". I don't want "Third" to run.
Given the Validate method signature only takes a single ruleset argument I don't see any way to do this. There is "*", but I don't want to run all the rules.
Please help.

You could use validator constructor instead of RuleSet as a workaround for this problem.
Just create enum inside of validator class and then use its value when creating validator.
I this way correct rules will be activated depending on what Mode is set in constructor.
public class UserValidator : AbstractValidator<User>
{
public enum Mode
{
Create,
Edit
}
public UserValidator()
{
// Default rules...
}
public UserValidator(UserValidator.Mode mode)
: this()
{
if (mode == Mode.Edit)
{
// Rules for Edit...
RuleFor(so => so.SomeMember)
.SetValidator(
new SomeMemberValidator(SomeMemberValidator.Mode.SomeMode))
}
if (mode == Mode.Create)
{
// Rules for Create...
RuleFor(so => so.SomeMember)
.SetValidator(
new SomeMemberValidator())
}
}
}
I think it's actually more flexible method than using RuleSet.
There is only one small problem regarding FluentValidation MVC integration:
User class can't have attribute [Validator(typeof(UserValidator))] because UserValidator will be then created using default constructor, before you can do anything in controller method.
Validator must be created and called manually. Like that for example:
public class UserController : Controller
{
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(User userData)
{
var validator = new UserValidator(UserValidator.Mode.Create);
if (ValidateWrapper(validator, userData, this.ModelState))
{
// Put userData in database...
}
else
{
// ValidateWrapper added errors from UserValidator to ModelState.
return View();
}
}
private static bool ValidateWrapper<T>(FluentValidation.AbstractValidator<T> validator, T data, ModelStateDictionary modelState)
{
var validationResult = validator.Validate(data);
if (!validationResult.IsValid)
{
foreach (var error in validationResult.Errors)
modelState.AddModelError(error.PropertyName, error.ErrorMessage);
return false;
}
return true;
}
}

You can execute more than one RuleSet, but I don't think you can execute the inner RuleSet.
validator.Validate(new ValidationContext<SomeObject>(person, new PropertyChain(), new RulesetValidatorSelector("First", "Second", "Fourth")));
Source
The other option is to investigate the source code and try to think a way of doing it. The third parameter of the ValidationContext is an interface, IValidatorSelector, maybe you can have some luck with a custom class.

Disable Required validation attribute under certain circumstances

I was wondering if it is possible to disable the Required validation attribute in certain controller actions. I am wondering this because on one of my edit forms I do not require the user to enter values for fields that they have already specified previously. However I then implement logic that when they enter a value it uses some special logic to update the model, such as hashing a value etc.
Any sugestions on how to get around this problem?
EDIT:
And yes client validation is a problem here to, as it will not allow them to submit the form without entering a value.

This problem can be easily solved by using view models. View models are classes that are specifically tailored to the needs of a given view. So for example in your case you could have the following view models:
public UpdateViewView
{
[Required]
public string Id { get; set; }
... some other properties
}
public class InsertViewModel
{
public string Id { get; set; }
... some other properties
}
which will be used in their corresponding controller actions:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(UpdateViewView model)
{
...
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Insert(InsertViewModel model)
{
...
}

If you just want to disable validation for a single field in client side then you can override the validation attributes as follows:
#Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.SomeValue,
new Dictionary<string, object> { { "data-val", false }})

I know this question has been answered a long time ago and the accepted answer will actually do the work. But there's one thing that bothers me: having to copy 2 models only to disable a validation.
Here's my suggestion:
public class InsertModel
{
[Display(...)]
public virtual string ID { get; set; }
...Other properties
}
public class UpdateModel : InsertModel
{
[Required]
public override string ID
{
get { return base.ID; }
set { base.ID = value; }
}
}
This way, you don't have to bother with client/server side validations, the framework will behave the way it's supposed to. Also, if you define a [Display] attribute on the base class, you don't have to redefine it in your UpdateModel.
And you can still use these classes the same way:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(UpdateModel model)
{
...
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Insert(InsertModel model)
{
...
}

You can remove all validation off a property with the following in your controller action.
ModelState.Remove<ViewModel>(x => x.SomeProperty);
#Ian's comment regarding MVC5
The following is still possible
ModelState.Remove("PropertyNameInModel");
Bit annoying that you lose the static typing with the updated API. You could achieve something similar to the old way by creating an instance of HTML helper and using NameExtensions Methods.

Client side
For disabling validation for a form, multiple options based on my research is given below. One of them would would hopefully work for you.
Option 1
I prefer this, and this works perfectly for me.
(function ($) {
$.fn.turnOffValidation = function (form) {
var settings = form.validate().settings;
for (var ruleIndex in settings.rules) {
delete settings.rules[ruleIndex];
}
};
})(jQuery);
and invoking it like
$('#btn').click(function () {
$(this).turnOffValidation(jQuery('#myForm'));
});
Option 2
$('your selector here').data('val', false);
$("form").removeData("validator");
$("form").removeData("unobtrusiveValidation");
$.validator.unobtrusive.parse("form");
Option 3
var settings = $.data($('#myForm').get(0), 'validator').settings;
settings.ignore = ".input";
Option 4
$("form").get(0).submit();
jQuery('#createForm').unbind('submit').submit();
Option 5
$('input selector').each(function () {
$(this).rules('remove');
});
Server Side
Create an attribute and mark your action method with that attribute. Customize this to adapt to your specific needs.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All)]
public class IgnoreValidationAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var modelState = filterContext.Controller.ViewData.ModelState;
foreach (var modelValue in modelState.Values)
{
modelValue.Errors.Clear();
}
}
}
A better approach has been described here Enable/Disable mvc server side validation dynamically

Personally I would tend to use the approach Darin Dimitrov showed in his solution.
This frees you up to be able to use the data annotation approach with validation AND have separate data attributes on each ViewModel corresponding to the task at hand.
To minimize the amount of work for copying between model and viewmodel you should look at AutoMapper or ValueInjecter. Both have their individual strong points, so check them both.
Another possible approach for you would be to derive your viewmodel or model from IValidatableObject. This gives you the option to implement a function Validate.
In validate you can return either a List of ValidationResult elements or issue a yield return for each problem you detect in validation.
The ValidationResult consists of an error message and a list of strings with the fieldnames. The error messages will be shown at a location near the input field(s).
public IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext)
{
if( NumberField < 0 )
{
yield return new ValidationResult(
"Don't input a negative number",
new[] { "NumberField" } );
}
if( NumberField > 100 )
{
yield return new ValidationResult(
"Don't input a number > 100",
new[] { "NumberField" } );
}
yield break;
}

The cleanest way here I believe is going to disable your client side validation and on the server side you will need to:
ModelState["SomeField"].Errors.Clear (in your controller or create an action filter to remove errors before the controller code is executed)
Add ModelState.AddModelError from your controller code when you detect a violation of your detected issues.
Seems even a custom view model here wont solve the problem because the number of those 'pre answered' fields could vary. If they dont then a custom view model may indeed be the easiest way, but using the above technique you can get around your validations issues.

this was someone else's answer in the comments...but it should be a real answer:
$("#SomeValue").removeAttr("data-val-required")
tested on MVC 6 with a field having the [Required] attribute
answer stolen from https://stackoverflow.com/users/73382/rob above

I was having this problem when I creating a Edit View for my Model and I want to update just one field.
My solution for a simplest way is put the two field using :
<%: Html.HiddenFor(model => model.ID) %>
<%: Html.HiddenFor(model => model.Name)%>
<%: Html.HiddenFor(model => model.Content)%>
<%: Html.TextAreaFor(model => model.Comments)%>
Comments is the field that I only update in Edit View, that not have Required Attribute.
ASP.NET MVC 3 Entity

AFAIK you can not remove attribute at runtime, but only change their values (ie: readonly true/false) look here for something similar .
As another way of doing what you want without messing with attributes I will go with a ViewModel for your specific action so you can insert all the logic without breaking the logic needed by other controllers.
If you try to obtain some sort of wizard (a multi steps form) you can instead serialize the already compiled fields and with TempData bring them along your steps. (for help in serialize deserialize you can use MVC futures)

What #Darin said is what I would recommend as well. However I would add to it (and in response to one of the comments) that you can in fact also use this method for primitive types like bit, bool, even structures like Guid by simply making them nullable. Once you do this, the Required attribute functions as expected.
public UpdateViewView
{
[Required]
public Guid? Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required]
public int? Age { get; set; }
[Required]
public bool? IsApproved { get; set; }
//... some other properties
}

As of MVC 5 this can be easily achieved by adding this in your global.asax.
DataAnnotationsModelValidatorProvider.AddImplicitRequiredAttributeForValueTypes = false;

I was looking for a solution where I can use the same model for an insert and update in web api. In my situation is this always a body content. The [Requiered] attributes must be skipped if it is an update method.
In my solution, you place an attribute [IgnoreRequiredValidations] above the method. This is as follows:
public class WebServiceController : ApiController
{
[HttpPost]
public IHttpActionResult Insert(SameModel model)
{
...
}
[HttpPut]
[IgnoreRequiredValidations]
public IHttpActionResult Update(SameModel model)
{
...
}
...
What else needs to be done?
An own BodyModelValidator must becreated and added at the startup.
This is in the HttpConfiguration and looks like this: config.Services.Replace(typeof(IBodyModelValidator), new IgnoreRequiredOrDefaultBodyModelValidator());
using Owin;
using your_namespace.Web.Http.Validation;
[assembly: OwinStartup(typeof(your_namespace.Startup))]
namespace your_namespace
{
public class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
Configuration(app, new HttpConfiguration());
}
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app, HttpConfiguration config)
{
config.Services.Replace(typeof(IBodyModelValidator), new IgnoreRequiredOrDefaultBodyModelValidator());
}
...
My own BodyModelValidator is derived from the DefaultBodyModelValidator. And i figure out that i had to override the 'ShallowValidate' methode. In this override i filter the requierd model validators.
And now the IgnoreRequiredOrDefaultBodyModelValidator class and the IgnoreRequiredValidations attributte class:
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Web.Http.Controllers;
using System.Web.Http.Metadata;
using System.Web.Http.Validation;
namespace your_namespace.Web.Http.Validation
{
public class IgnoreRequiredOrDefaultBodyModelValidator : DefaultBodyModelValidator
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<HttpActionBinding, bool> _ignoreRequiredValidationByActionBindingCache;
static IgnoreRequiredOrDefaultBodyModelValidator()
{
_ignoreRequiredValidationByActionBindingCache = new ConcurrentDictionary<HttpActionBinding, bool>();
}
protected override bool ShallowValidate(ModelMetadata metadata, BodyModelValidatorContext validationContext, object container, IEnumerable<ModelValidator> validators)
{
var actionContext = validationContext.ActionContext;
if (RequiredValidationsIsIgnored(actionContext.ActionDescriptor.ActionBinding))
validators = validators.Where(v => !v.IsRequired);
return base.ShallowValidate(metadata, validationContext, container, validators);
}
#region RequiredValidationsIsIgnored
private bool RequiredValidationsIsIgnored(HttpActionBinding actionBinding)
{
bool ignore;
if (!_ignoreRequiredValidationByActionBindingCache.TryGetValue(actionBinding, out ignore))
_ignoreRequiredValidationByActionBindingCache.TryAdd(actionBinding, ignore = RequiredValidationsIsIgnored(actionBinding.ActionDescriptor as ReflectedHttpActionDescriptor));
return ignore;
}
private bool RequiredValidationsIsIgnored(ReflectedHttpActionDescriptor actionDescriptor)
{
if (actionDescriptor == null)
return false;
return actionDescriptor.MethodInfo.GetCustomAttribute<IgnoreRequiredValidationsAttribute>(false) != null;
}
#endregion
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, Inherited = true)]
public class IgnoreRequiredValidationsAttribute : Attribute
{
}
}
Sources:
Using string debug = new StackTrace().ToString() to find out who is
handeling the model validation.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/web-api/overview/advanced/configuring-aspnet-web-api to know how set my own validator.
https://github.com/ASP-NET-MVC/aspnetwebstack/blob/master/src/System.Web.Http/Validation/DefaultBodyModelValidator.cs to figure out what this validator is doing.
https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/System.Web/ModelBinding/DataAnnotationsModelValidator.cs to figure out why the IsRequired property is set on true. Here you can also find the original Attribute as a property.

If you don't want to use another ViewModel you can disable client validations on the view and also remove the validations on the server for those properties you want to ignore. Please check this answer for a deeper explanation https://stackoverflow.com/a/15248790/1128216

In my case the same Model was used in many pages for re-usability purposes. So what i did was i have created a custom attribute which checks for exclusions
public class ValidateAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public string Exclude { get; set; }
public string Base { get; set; }
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(this.Exclude))
{
string[] excludes = this.Exclude.Split(',');
foreach (var exclude in excludes)
{
actionContext.ModelState.Remove(Base + "." + exclude);
}
}
if (actionContext.ModelState.IsValid == false)
{
var mediaType = new MediaTypeHeaderValue("application/json");
var error = actionContext.ModelState;
actionContext.Response = actionContext.Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, error.Keys, mediaType);
}
}
}
and in your controller
[Validate(Base= "person",Exclude ="Age,Name")]
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Save(User person)
{
//do something
}
Say the Model is
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Range(18,99)]
public string Age { get; set; }
[MaxLength(250)]
public string Address { get; set; }
}

This one worked for me:
$('#fieldId').rules('remove', 'required');

Yes it is possible to disable Required Attribute. Create your own custom class attribute (sample code called ChangeableRequired) to extent from RequiredAtribute and add a Disabled Property and override the IsValid method to check if it is disbaled. Use reflection to set the disabled poperty, like so:
Custom Attribute:
namespace System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations
{
public class ChangeableRequired : RequiredAttribute
{
public bool Disabled { get; set; }
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
if (Disabled)
{
return true;
}
return base.IsValid(value);
}
}
}
Update you property to use your new custom Attribute:
class Forex
{
....
[ChangeableRequired]
public decimal? ExchangeRate {get;set;}
....
}
where you need to disable the property use reflection to set it:
Forex forex = new Forex();
// Get Property Descriptor from instance with the Property name
PropertyDescriptor descriptor = TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(forex.GetType())["ExchangeRate"];
//Search for Attribute
ChangeableRequired attrib = (ChangeableRequired)descriptor.Attributes[typeof(ChangeableRequired)];
// Set Attribute to true to Disable
attrib.Disabled = true;
This feels nice and clean?
NB: The validation above will be disabled while your object instance is alive\active...