We Keep Coding

ViewModel into View

Currently I'm learning C# with WPF. My mainapproach is to use the MVVM pattern the best I can but now I'm a bit confused.
In my Application for all my views I have a viewmodel:
private DruckviewViewModel ViewModel { get; set; }
public Druckview()
{
ViewModel = new DruckviewViewModel();
DataContext = ViewModel;
InitializeComponent();
}
Is this the suggested way to implement the ViewModel into the View or are there better ways to do it?

MVVM doesn't mean no code-behind.
MVVM is the pattern of separation of concerns. It helps to separate your application's architecture to the three parts(in order of appearance):
Model
View
ViewModel
Where Model is class containing your business logic.
View represents your view class which contains only view related logic(XAML and code-behind) It is Ok to have code-behind unless code contains only view's logic (for example in button click eventhandler you copy color of one textbox to another, which of course can be done in XAML, but from MVVM point of view it is not important)
ViewModel represents View's behavior without any reference to the View.
Notice that for example this property on my opinion will violate MVVM pattern, because Visibility is view related type
public Visibility MyVisibility { get; set; }
So dependencies between parts of MVVM goes like this:
Model doesn't know about anything
ViewModel know only about Model
View know about ViewModel
View ---> ViewModel ---> Model
I think for using MVVM is not important how tightly View bounded to the ViewModel. It is already bounded, because you use ViewModel's properties and commands.
Not bounding tightly (for example using interface as ViewModel) will give your possibility to test View without real ViewModel by creating own "design-time" viewmodels for example.
If your current solution works and satisfy your needs and you just starting with MVVM and WPF then continue with that until you meet need to fully isolate View from ViewModel's types

This will work, but it isn't really true to the MVVM pattern, as the View is now directly tied to the View Model.
Most existing MVVM frameworks use the concept of a View Manager. A class that creates a view from a view model instance, connects them together, and displays the view. You would end up with something like this:
DruckviewViewModel vm = new DruckviewViewModel()
ViewManager.Instance.DisplayViewFor(vm);
It would figure out, based on naming conventions, that DruckviewViewModel uses the Druckview. It would create the view, set the DataContextProperty, and make the view visible.
Without using one of these frameworks, this is a lot of work to build on your own, but this is considered a "Best Practice" pattern.
You may want to consider using an existing framework, a good list comparing their features can be found here.
BTW, if you are wondering how to get intellisense in the XAML designer without setting the DataContext in the constructor of the view. The proper way to do it is to add a design instance in XAML, with an attribute like this.
d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance local:DruckviewViewModel}"

Should I have an encapsulating ViewModel for each Model?

I've been working with WPF and MVVM a lot lately. I was under the impression that I understood the MVVM pattern quite well but I've begun having some doubts.
Right now, I have an encapsulating ViewModel object for each Model object.
Let's say my Model contains two classes: Property, which contains a list of PropertyValue. In my ViewModel, I have a PropertyVm, which contains a Property and a list of PropertyValueVm (each containing a PropertyValue). Both Vm's implement a BaseVm which contains the OnPropertyChanged method.
Consider a View with two comboboxes, for Property and PropertyValue. The first combobox's ItemsSource will be bound to a collection of PropertyVms and the second combobox's ItemsSource will be bound to the PropertyValueVms of the PropertyVm selected in combobox 1.
This is all based on the article that got me to explore WPF and MVVM in the first place: Simplifying the WPF TreeView by Using the ViewModel Pattern, by Josh Smith
However, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with the large amount of ViewModel classes my project contains, some of which contain very little code or simply nothing but the corresponding Model class.
Other implementations I've come across have the INotifyPropertyChanged on the Model objects instead. This would mean you'd assign the Model objects to the Comboboxes directly. This would slim down the amount of ViewModel classes, but doesn't this violate the basics of MVVM?
I've also seen people advocating a single ViewModel per View. But I fear this would turn my ViewModel classes into humongous, incoherent walls of texts.
So my question in short: Should I have an encapsulating ViewModel for each Model? If not, then what is best practice?

The primary driver of MVVM is to maximise the testable code via the strong separation of presentation and presentation logic. Ideally we encapsulate the presentation logic in one or more view models - so in terms of your sub-question, have as many view models as makes sense. Dividing the functionality up into a series of smaller view models is good practice from my experience. But there is no one-size-fits-all way to implement this. So in some ways, the answer to the question is: it depends on your situation.
If your model never changes then you've reached a religious fork in the road. The pragmatist exposes the model to UI binding (guilty!!). The purist wraps the model in a view model because the VM sits between M and V in the design and if we don't dogmatically adhere to this then bad things must surely happen.
If your model changes then you have design choices. You can keep the model immutable and refresh your view model with a new version of the model and raise changes from there. Or, if your architecture facilitates an ever updating model that the UI just needs to represent then ask yourself if you truly gain by sticking a view model in the middle. But!! As soon as you get a sniff of logic creeping into the model then it's worth a view model.

Battleship in WPF using MVVM strucutre

I am completely new to WPF and MVVM, that's why I decided to start working on that. I am developing a Battleship game. If I create Canvas in my View, and create another canvas in ViewModel and bind them - everything works fine. However there is a problem. To begin with, I add Rectangles and TextBlocks to my Canvas to represent the grid. My "Field" Class (Model) is used in ViewModel for the logic to be done. And I want to have the property inside that class IsLegendHidden (bool). If I set that to true, then the method is called. In that method the linq looks for the textblocks related to my legend and then sets their visibility to hidden. It works fine, however having logic in the Model class is wrong in MVVM structure. But moving the algorithm to the ViewModel side will eliminate the ability to use class property "IsLegendHidden". But I want to have that property inside the model class. How can I solve that?

Your Model Class is free to implement INotifyPropertyChanged and it can notify the ViewModel when a particular property changes. This allows you to have a simpler model and get the logic done in the ViewModel.
You can also have a separate modeling of properties that are more focused on view concerns that the ViewModel can consult.
When using MVVM I like to try to separate things as much as possible. The model objects should just represent the concept they're modeling. The ViewModel is tied to a specific view so it will interpret or translate the model's properties into what is important to the view. You can have something on the Model that isn't 'IsLegendHidden', but that powers the ViewModel's 'IsLegendHidden' property.

How can control in the view get specific data from view model?

I have multiple of views (user controls), each with its own ViewModel. To navigate between them I am using buttons. Buttons display image and text from corresponding view model and also need column and row (because there are like 10 views: 10 columns with different number of rows each).
Right now buttons are created dynamically (I made a Navigator control for this) and for view models I have base class to hold text, image, column and row. Number of views available will be different (depends on user level and certain settings), that's why it's I need control here.
Question: how shall my control get data from view models?
Right now I have interface INavigator, defined in (lol) control itself. And view models implement it. I could go opposite, let my control to know about view models. Both looks wrong.
There is a single Navigator control what has, lets say, Items bound to a list of view models. It can cast each view model to INavigator or ViewModelBase (common for all pages) to obtain specific view model image, text, column and row. So either view model knows about control (to implement INavigator) or control knows about ViewModelBase.. And this is a problem, both solution bind tight control and view models, which is bad in mvvm.
Schematically

The way you've drawn your diagram answers your own question as to how you should structure the code for this.
What you need is one VM (let's call it MainVM) which contains an ObservableCollection<VMBase> of the other VMs (using your base type so that they can all happily live in the same collection).
Your View needs an ItemsControl (bound to your ObservableCollection<VMBase>) where you specify a DataTemplate for the Button using the properties exposed by the VMBase type only. Set the Command property in the Button to call SwitchCommand, CommandParameter is set to the item itself (i.e. {Binding .}).
Your View also needs a ContentControl bound to a SelectedVM property on MainVM which you can populate.
Implement SwitchCommand to set the SelectedVM property based on the value from the CommandParameter.
public void ExecuteSwitchCommand(object parameter)
{
var vmBase = parameter as VMBase;
if (vmBase != null)
SelectedVM = vmBase;
}
All properties mentioned here should be INotifyPropertyChanged enabled so that the View registers when they change and updates the UI.
To get the different UIs for the ContentControl, add type-specific DataTemplates for each of your specific VM types to the Resources file of your View (or if you're smart and are building a custom plug-in framework, merge the Resource Dictionaries).
A lot of people forget with MVVM that the whole point is that there is a purposeful separation of View from ViewModel, thus meaning you can potentially have many Views for a single ViewModel, which is what this demonstrates.

I find it's easiest to think of MVVM as a top-down approach... View knows about it's ViewModel, ViewModel knows about its Model, but Model does not know about its ViewModel and ViewModel does not know about its View.
I also find a View-first approach to development the easiest to work with, as UI development in XAML is static (has to be).
I think a lot of people get to wrapped up in 'making every component (M, V, VM) standalone and replaceable', myself included, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that is just counter-productive.
Technically, sure you could get very complicated and using IoC containers, create some ViewLocator object which binds a View-type to a ViewModel-type, but... what exactly does that gain you besides more confusion? It makes it honestly harder (because I've done this at one point) to develop because now you've lost design-time support first and foremost, among other things; and you're still either binding to a specific view model interface in your view or creating the binding at run-time. Why complicate it?
This article is a good read, and the first Note: explicitly talks about View vs. ViewModel. Hopefully, it will help you draw your own conclusions.
To directly answer your question, I think having your ViewModels implement an INavigator interface of some sort is probably ideal. Remember your VM is 'glue' between your view and model/business logic, its job is to transform business data into data that is consumable by your views, so it exists somewhere between both your UI and business layers.
This is why there are things like Messengers and View Services, which is where your navigator service on the ViewModels can fit in nicely.

I think the design has led to a no way out situation.
I believe that creating a custom button control where the dependency properties tie the image, the row and column actually provide a way for the page, which it resides on ,to get that information to them; whether they are dynamically created or not.
Continuing on with that thought. There is no MVVM logic applied to a custom control, the control contains what it needs to do its job and that is through the dependency properties as mentioned. Any functionality of the button should be done by commanding; all this makes the button data driven and robust enough to use in a MVVM methodology or not.
Question: how shall my control get data from view models?
There should only one viewmodel which is the page the control resides on. The control is simply bound to information which ultimately resides on that VM. How it gets there, that is up to the programmer. If the button is going to contain state data, that is bound from its dependency property in a two way fashion back to the item it is bound to.
By keeping VMs out of the buttons and only having one VM that is the best way to segregate and maintain the data. Unless I am really missing something here....

Same as others here I find it a bit hard to actually understand what you are asking, so this is quite general. The answer to the question header is simply: the Control gets the data from the ViewModel through bindings, always. You set the DataContext of your Control to the corresponding ViewModel, and from there you keep the ViewModel and the Control synchronized:
If you add an ItemsControl containing buttons to the View, you add an ObservableCollection<ButtonViewModel> to the ViewModel and bind the ItemsSource of the ItemsControl to this.
If you allow the user to dynamically add content to the View, the actual code that does it resides in the ViewModel, e.g. when the user clicks on a button "Add Button", you use the Command property to call a ViewModel method that adds a ButtonViewModel to the collection and the View will automatically reflect your changes.
There do exist complicated cases that are impossible to code exclusively in the ViewModel, I have found Behaviors to be the missing link there, but I'll get into that when you show me the specific case.
If you'd like to get a working example, please provide as much code as you can, with your exact expectations of what it should do.

MVVM and where to keep displayed fields/properties

I am learning MVVM by building a simple WPF calculator app.
In this simple app, there is one view (Main window), one ViewModel, and one Model (the calculation engine).
My calculator displays the current value of all previous operations, and the operations that got to that value.
For example a display might look like this:
1 * 2 * 3
6
I am wondering if these should be saved as Properties on the ViewModel, Model, or both?
More general -- should the ViewModel contain only properties that exist on the Model, or this is not mandatory?
In this case i would save a CurrentValue and DisplayValue properties, just wondering which architecture layer should these belong to.

In MVVM, ViewModels allow you to shape multiple entities from one or more data models or sources into a single object, optimized for consumption and rendering by the view. The below image illustrates the concept of a ViewModel:
The purpose of a ViewModel is for the view to have a single object to render, alleviating the need for UI logic code in the view that would otherwise be necessary. This means the only responsibility, or concern, of the view is to render that single ViewModel object, aiding in a cleaner separation of concerns (SoC). Concerns are distinct aspects of the application that have a particular purpose (i.e., concern), and keeping these aspects apart means your application is more organized, and the code more focused. Putting data manipulation code in its own location away from the view and controller, enforces SoC.
Using ViewModels in MVNM for finer granularity and better SoC leads to more easily maintainable and testable code. Remember, unit testing is about testing small units.

I am wondering if these should be saved as Properties on the ViewModel, Model, or both?
In my opinion these should be property in ViewModel. Why these should be in the Model too? There is no benefit I can think of having this in Model too. These properties will only make sense to user in View so they should be displayed via ViewModel in the View. Model has nothing to do with it. At most you will have to pass expression 1 * 2 * 3 to Model and get results back, as you mentioned your engine is in Model.
More general -- should the ViewModel contain only properties that exist on the Model, or this is not mandatory?
In general, a ViewModel should contain all the properties that have to be displayed in the View (via ViewModel). Regardless of the fact whether this property exists in Model or not. There is no rule that if this exists in ViwModel it should must be in Model too and vice versa. Generally Model is nothing more than representation of your business entities.

First of all, the model is not the place, where all your logic should be. The model is just the data for the view.
View model should contain any code needed to correctly adapt the model data to WPF display.
In your case you should work on an architecture a bit more.
There should be a class like CalculatorProcessor. View model may have properties for CurrentExpression, that, when a button = is pressed, are passed to a CalculatorProcessor to get processed (calculated) in sequece.
A result is also a property on a view model class that a view's controls are bound to.

ViewModel is specifically created for databinding purposes and as you expected contains properties needed by the view. In my opinion if you need any computed values to be displayed in the view, you can expose them as properties on view model.

A model class is not only a business object, even if the model classes typically provide property and collection change notification events through change notification interfaces, so they can be data bound in the view, you can define an observable collection of instances of a class representing operations that represent he Ui interaction, so when a new op is inserted by the user, you add it to the collection and the UI will automatically reflect it through the binding to an templated listbox (for example)