We Keep Coding

Allowed Values of field in ASP.NET

Is there any data annotation for the allowed values in ASP.NET MVC Core? Since there is no enum in SQL server I am not able to migrate my class with enum field in it to the database. I want to give possible/allowed values to the field in the class. Is there any way to do this?
public class Employee
{
[Key]
public int ID { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Status { get; set; }
}
I want to provide Active and Inactive as the only possible values to the Status field.

you can also do this using a regular expression as below:
[Required]
[RegularExpression("Active|Inactive", ErrorMessage = "Invalid Status")]
public string Status { get; set; }
More details can by found here

As #ps2goat mentioned, you could use a check constraint on your database. However, for the model coming into the API you probably still want to provide validation there. Ideally you will do what you can, within reason, to prevent bad data from ever getting to the data layer. You don't mention whether you're using an n-tier architecture, or if your controller is directly referencing the data model. Either way, I believe this custom attribute can be used either at the API layer or on the entity model.
This is a good answer that explains how to create a custom validation attribute. It's an old answer, but it still applies to .Net Core. And here is an answer for a custom validation attribute in .Net Core. It basically looks like this:
public class EmployeeStatusAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
private string[] _allowedValues;
public EmployeeStatusAttribute(string[] allowedValues)
{
_allowedValues = allowedValues;
}
protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object value, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
var employee = value as Employee;
if (_allowedValues.Contains(employee.Status))
{
return ValidationResult.Success;
}
return new ValidationResult(`{employee.Status} is not a valid status`);
}
}
Then in your model:
public class Employee
{
...
[EmployeeStatus("Active", "Inactive")]
public string Status { get; set; }
...
}

Inconsistent requirement of Model prefix for asp.net core tag helpers

I noticed a strange behavior in which there is inconsistent requirement of Model prefix for asp.net core tag helpers below. asp-for cannot accept Model prefix but asp-items must have Model prefix. My head explodes.
#model ProblemVM
<select
asp-for="Problem.TagId"
asp-items="Model.Tags.ToSelectListItem(Model.Problem.TagId)"
/>
public class ProblemVM
{
public IEnumerable<Tag> Tags { get; set; }
public Problem Problem{ get; set; }
}
Related classes.
public abstract class ISelectListItemable
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Tag: ISelectListItemable
{
[Display(Name = "Tag Name")]
public override string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Problem : ISelectListItemable
{
[Display(Name = "Problem Name")]
public override string Name { get; set; }
public int TagId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey(nameof(TagId))]
public virtual Tag Tag { get; set; }
}
public static IEnumerable<SelectListItem> ToSelectListItem<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int selectedValue)
where T : ISelectListItemable
{
return from item in items
select new SelectListItem
{
Text = item.Name,
Value = item.Id.ToString(),
Selected = item.Id.Equals(selectedValue)
};
}
Question
What is the rule of using Model prefix for tag helpers?

It's about the actual type of the property the attribute of the tag helper corresponds to. The asp-for attribute maps to a For property on the built-in tag helpers which is typed as ModelExpression. So, it literally is looking for an expression relative to the model of the view.
The asp-items attribute, on the other hand is typed as IEnumerable<SelectListItem>, and thus literally needs a concrete value, not just an expression. The fact that it just so happens to be coming from a prop on your model is inconsequential. The value could come from ViewData, or be satisfied directly inline.
There are certain situations, though, when you still need to include Model for an attribute like asp-for. This is generally when your model itself is a list, dictionary, etc. and you need to index. You can't just add something like [i].Foo as an expression, so in that case you would do #Model[i].Foo.

The documentation does say that:
The asp-for attribute value is a special case and doesn't require a Model prefix, the other Tag Helper attributes do (such as asp-items)
The reason I see is that asp-for will always be from your model. But asp-items can be any collection. It doesn't have to be from your model. So if you do want it to be from your model, you need to tell it that.

Model or ViewModel when representing a subset of data in MVVM?

If I have a complex model representing a large amount of data, and I only wish to display a cut-down version of that model (e.g. Name, Description), what is the best approach in MVVM?
Most solutions I can find seem to assume that the data is already present in memory and recommend using a new ViewModel that exposes only the fields required.
However rather than select out all of the data from the database, it would be preferable to select just what is necessary. Do I then create a new model to hold that data? Selecting directly into the ViewModel is possible but feels like the wrong thing to do. Likewise using a new model to represent a different version of the same data also feels off somehow.
What is the accepted method of doing this?
As a simple example (Simple enough class that I wouldn't ordinarily do this):
public class User {
public int UserID {get;set;}
public string FirstName
public string LastName
public int AccessLevelID
public List<Groups> UserGroups
}
but I only really need:
public class PreviewUser {
int UserID
string FirstName
}

You can create another type with is a subset of the business type.
usually this is known as a
DTO - Data transfer Object which encapsulates only what you need. so the database needs to query only the subset of the entity.
public class UserDto
{
public int ID { get;set;}
public string Name{ get;set;}
}
Secondly if you need to add some ui logic to the display it is common to wrap the specific DTO in a more specific UI model.
public class UserUI
{
UserDTO _userDto;
UserUI(UserDTO userDto)
{
_userDto = userDto;
}
public string Name
{
get{return IsAfter_21_hours ? "The user as gone home" : _userDto.Name;}
}
}
the UserViewModel will reference an instance of UserUI.

You can either remove properties you don't need from the model (to slightly improve performance) or you can create a viewmodel that will provide only properties that you want to show.
Here is an example:
public class UserViewModel
{
private readonly User _user;
public UserViewModel(User user)
{
_user = user;
}
public int UserID
{
get { return _user.UserID; }
}
public string FirstName
{
get { return _user.FirstName; }
}
}
...
var viewModels = userRepository.GetUsers().Select(user => new UserViewModel(user));
UPDATED:
If performance is really important for you, you can use inheritance. Base class will be smaller version of the data and derived class will contain complete data. You can use the base class when you need to get only some fields from DB and save bandwidth.
public class BaseUser
{
public int UserID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class User : BaseUser
{
public string LastName { get; set; }
public int AccessLevelID { get; set; }
public List<Groups> UserGroups { get; set; }
}

There are number of approaches you may use:
use "full version" of source model. Since you're building UI, the user will see only what you want to display;
use view model, and wrap source model into this view model. The implementation is trivial, and amount of data is limited before UI;
use view model, and copy data from source model into this view model. The implementation is more complex (either mapping from existing model, or loading only required data from database), but view model and model are totally decoupled.
Actually, it depends on what is more suitable for you.
Note, that often the difference between "view model" and "model" is blurred. If the model looks like this:
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
...and view model - like this:
public class PersonViewModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
then throw this view model away. While there's no difference, you don't need to create extra classes.

I think you don't have to create new model class to hold user data for view . Instead create a view model class and map the model properties to VM. See the example below
public class UserViewModel
{
Public UserViewModel(User user)
{
//initialize required viewmodel properties here
}
int UserID {get;set;}
string FirstName{get;set;}
}

Rebuilding a nested ViewModel on !ModelState.IsValid

What are good strategies for rebuilding/enriching a nested or complex ViewModel?
A common way to rebuild a flat ViewModel is shown here
But building and rebuilding a nested ViewModel using that method is too complex.
Models
public class PersonInfo
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Nationality { get; set; }
public List<Address> Addresses { get; set; }
}
public class Address
{
public int AddressTypeID { get; set; }
public string Country { get; set; }
public string PostalCode { get; set; }
}
public class AddressType
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
view models
public class PersonEditModel
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; } //read-only
public int Nationality { get; set; }
public List<AddressEditModel> Addresses { get; set; }
public List<SelectListItem> NationalitySelectList { get; set; } //read-only
}
public class AddressEditModel
{
public int AddressTypeId { get; set; }
public string AddressDescription { get; set; } //read-only
public string Country { get; set; }
public string PostalCode { get; set; }
public List<SelectListItem> CountrySelectList { get; set; } //read-only
}
actions
public ActionResult Update(int id)
{
var addressTypes = service.GetAddressTypes();
var person = service.GetPerson(id);
var personEditModel= Map<PersonEditModel>.From(person);
foreach(var addressType in addressTypes)
{
var address = person.Addresses.SingleOrDefault(i => i.AddressTypeId == addressType.Id)
if(address == null)
{
personEditModel.Addresses.Add(new AddressEditModel
{
AddressTypeId = addressType.Id
});
}
else
{
personEditModel.Addresses.Add(Map<AddressEditModel>.From(address));
}
}
EnrichViewModel(personEditModel, person, addressTypes); //populate read-only data such as SelectList
return Index(personEditModel);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(PersonEditModel editModel)
{
if(!ModelState.IsValid)
{
var person = service.GetPerson(editModel.Id);
var addressTypes = service.GetAddressTypes();
EnrichViewModel(editModel, person, addressTypes);
return View(editModel);
}
service.Save(...);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
//populate read-only data such as SelectList
private void EnrichViewModel(PersonEditModel personEditModel, Person person, IEnumerable<AddressType> addressTypes)
{
personEditModel.Name = person.Name;
personEditModel.NationalitySelectList = GetNationalitySelectList();
foreach(var addressEditModel in personEditModel.Addresses)
{
addressEditModel.Description = addressTypes.Where(i => i.Id = addressEditModel.AddressTypeId).Select(i => i.Description).FirstOrDefault();
addressEditModel.CountrySelectListItems = GetCountrySelectList(addressEditModel.AddressTypeId);
}
}
My code for building and rebuilding the ViewModels (PersonEditModel and AddressEditModel) is too ugly. How do I restructure my code to clean this mess?
One easy way is to always build a new view model instead of merging/rebuilding since MVC will overwrite the fields with the values in ModelState anyway
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(PersonEditModel editModel)
{
if(!ModelState.IsValid)
{
var newEditModel = BuildPersonEditModel(editModel.Id);
return View(newEditModel);
}
but I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Is it? Are there other solutions besides AJAX?

I'm going to tackle your specific pain points one-by-one and I'll try to present my own experience and likely solutions along the way. I'm afraid there is no best answer here. You just have to pick the lesser of the evils.
Rebuilding Dropdownlists
They are a bitch! There is no escaping rebuilding them when you re-render the page. While HTML Forms are good at remembering the selected index (and they will happily restore it for you), you have to rebuild them. If you don't want to rebuild them, switch to Ajax.
Rebuilding Rest of View Model (even nested)
HTML forms are good at rebuilding the whole model for you, as long as you stick to inputs and hidden fields and other form elements (selects, textarea, etc).
There is no avoiding posting back the data if you don't want to rebuild them, but in this case you need to ask yourself - which one is more efficient - posting back few extra bytes or making another query to fetch the missing pieces?
If you don't want to post back the readonly fields, but still want the model binder to work, you can exclude the properties via [Bind(Exclude="Name,SomeOtherProperty")] on the view model class. In this case, you probably need to set them again before sending them back to browser.
// excluding specific props. note that you can also "Include" instead of "Exclude".
[Bind(Exclude="Name,NationalitySelectList")]
public class PersonEditModel
{
...
If you exclude those properties, you don't have to resort to hidden fields and posting them back - as the model binder will simply ignore them and you still will get the values you need populated back.
Personally, I use Edit Models which contain just post-able data instead of Bind magic. Apart from avoiding magic string like you need with Bind, they give me the benefits of strong typing and a clearer intent. I use my own mapper classes to do the mapping but you can use something like Automapper to manage the mapping for you as well.
Another idea may be to cache the initial ViewModel in Session till a successful POST is made. That way, you do not have to rebuild it from grounds up. You just merge the initial one with the submitted one in case of validation errors.
I fight these same battles every time I work with Forms and finally, I've started to just suck it up and go fully AJAX for anything that's not a simple name-value collection type form. Besides being headache free, it also leads to better UX.
P.S. The link you posted is essentially doing the same thing that you're doing - just that its using a mapper framework to map properties between domain and view model.

ASP.NET MVC model binding with dynamic viewmodel

What is the recommended way to handle binding a complex viewmodel? For example, using the objects below:
class PersonViewModel
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
//I have also tried a generic object instead of dynamic with the same results
public dynamic PreferredSportsTeam { get; set; }
}
class SportsTeamViewModel
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
}
class BaseballTeamViewModel : SportsTeamViewModel
{
public double TeamERA { get; set; }
}
class HockeyTeamViewModel : SportsTeamViewModel
{
public int TotalSaves { get; set; }
}
I am trying to put either an instance of a BaseballTeamViewModel OR a HockeyTeamViewModel into the "PreferredSportsTeam" property of the PersonViewModel and then pass that PersonViewModel to the Edit View to allow the user to edit all of the fields.
I have successfully used EditorTemplates to display the corresponding View of the object stored in the "PreferredSportsTeam" property. However, when submitting the Edit Form the MVC model binder cannot reconstruct whatever object was stored in the PreferredSportsTeam. It does correctly fill the FirstName and LastName properties but the PreferredSportsTeam property always returns as a generic object that I cannot cast into anything else.
Is there something that I am missing or is it simply not possible with the default MVC model binder? I am aware of custom model binders and think they may be a solution but I am not knowledgeable enough about them to understand how they could be used to fix the problem.

Below code sample shows how to use dynamic object :
var team = new Team();
team.FirstName = "FirstName";
team.LastName = "LastName";
var baseballTeam = new BaseBallTeam();
baseballTeam.TotalSaves = 100;
team.PreferredSportsTeam = new ExpandoObject();
team.PreferredSportsTeam.BaseBallTeam = baseballTeam;
See This for more detailed explanation.