We Keep Coding

MVVM binding from static method

I'm working on my app that will get data from online database. I would like to show progress bar. Problem is that I can not make it work.
Current situation is:
I am using FreshMVVM.
Method to get data form online is in class FirebaseCloudNight. There is static method SynchronizeNights with which I get all nights (with function foreach). I would like to show progress bar based on nights done/remaining to be synchronized.
In ViewModel I have property CurrentProgress that is correctly bidden to View. I can not update this property correctly.
I left out a lot of code because I think is irrelevant. If you need more code please let me know.
The only solution I found is to create new instance of MV class. But after additional reading I found out that, although I see that property changed, binding was not OK, because it changed new instance of property.
Issue is that the only way I found is to update this property based on new instance. But then MVVM does not work --> UI is not refreshed because it updates different instance of property. How can this be done?
Below is my code (if it will be of any help).
Code to retrieve DB from cloud
namespace iVanApp.Services {
public class FirebaseCloudNight : FirebaseCloudBaseHelper
{
static public async Task<bool> SynchronizeNights()
{
// Synchronize from Cloud to DB
foreach (var cloudItem in cloudNights)
{
CurrentProgress= currentNight / numberOfNights;
try
{
//Here I removed code for retriving data from online DB
currentNight ++;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
}
ViewModel Code
async Task GetData()
{
bool success = await FirebaseCloudNight.SynchronizeNights();>
}
float currentProgress;
public float CurrentProgress
{
get => currentProgress;
set
{
currentProgress = value;
RaisePropertyChanged();
}
}
EDIT:
What I tried and does not work (because of obvious reasons)
namespace iVanApp.Services {
public class FirebaseCloudNight : FirebaseCloudBaseHelper
{
static public async Task<bool> SynchronizeNights()
{
// Synchronize from Cloud to DB
var VM = new UserAuthenticationPageModel();
foreach (var cloudItem in cloudNights)
{
VM.CurrentProgress = currentNight / numberOfNights;
try
{
//Here I removed code for retriving data from online DB
currentNight ++;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
}

Found an answer that is working
Added code in ViewModel code behind
public class UserAuthenticationPageModel : FreshBasePageModel
{
public static UserAuthenticationPageModel Instance { get; private set; }
public UserAuthenticationPageModel()
{
Instance = this;
}
Modified code in FirebaseCloudNight
namespace iVanApp.Services { public class FirebaseCloudNight :
FirebaseCloudBaseHelper {
static public async Task<bool> SynchronizeNights()
{
// Synchronize from Cloud to DB
foreach (var cloudItem in cloudNights)
{
UserAuthenticationPageModel.Instance.CurrentProgress = currentNight / numberOfNights
try
{
//Here I removed code for retriving data from online DB
currentNight ++;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
} }

In MVVMCross, is it possible to close a viewmodel and pass values back to the previous viewmodel in the navigation stack?

Consider the following example. I have three view models, ViewModel_A, ViewModel_B, and ViewModel_Values.
I want to be able to navigate to ViewModel_Values from either ViewModel_A or ViewModel_B, select a value from ViewModel_Values, then return that value to the calling view model.
Is there a way of passing arguments to previous view models in the navigation stack so that I can simply call ViewModel_Values.Close(this), thereby ensuring that the ViewModels_Values is decoupled from any other view models and can be used with arbitrary "parent" view models?

MvvmCross 5 onwards
From MvvmCross 5 you can use the new IMvxNavigationService that allows you to have a much richer navigation. One of the new features is the possibility to await a value from another ViewModel after navigating to it and should be the approach to take after MvvmCross 5 instead of Messenger, e.g.:
public class ViewModel_A : MvxViewModel
{
private readonly IMvxNavigationService _navigationService;
public ViewModel_A(IMvxNavigationService navigation)
{
_navigationService = navigationService;
}
public override async Task Initialize()
{
//Do heavy work and data loading here
}
public async Task SomeMethod()
{
var result = await _navigationService.Navigate<ViewModel_Values, MyObject, MyReturnObject>(new MyObject());
//Do something with the result MyReturnObject that you get back
}
}
public class ViewModel_Values : MvxViewModel<MyObject, MyReturnObject>
{
private readonly IMvxNavigationService _navigationService;
public ViewModel_Values(IMvxNavigationService navigation)
{
_navigationService = navigationService;
}
public override void Prepare(MyObject parameter)
{
//Do anything before navigating to the view
//Save the parameter to a property if you want to use it later
}
public override async Task Initialize()
{
//Do heavy work and data loading here
}
public async Task SomeMethodToClose()
{
// here you returned the value
await _navigationService.Close(this, new MyReturnObject());
}
}
More info here
HIH

Use messaging center. Here is the sample code.
//for trigger
MessagingCenter.Send<object> (this, "Hi");
//put this where you want to receive your data
MessagingCenter.Subscribe<object> (this, "Hi", (sender) => {
// do something whenever the "Hi" message is sent
});

Installing & using the MvxMessenger plugin is a great way to decouple view model communication in MvvmCross -
In your case, you could set up a new message -
public class ValuesChangedMessage : MvxMessage
{
public ValuesChangedMessage(object sender, int valuea, string valueb)
: base(sender)
{
Valuea = valuea;
Valueb = valueb;
}
public int Valuea { get; private set; }
public string Valueb { get; private set; }
}
In ViewModel_Values, you would act on / publish your UX changes with -
_mvxMessenger.Publish<ValuesChangedMessage>(new ValuesChangedMessage(this, 1, "boo!"));
And in ViewModel_A, ViewModel_B you would subscribe and act on them (as your ViewModel A / B would be still in the navigation stack when you pushed ViewModel_Values from them, so they could receive the message) -
private MvxSubscriptionToken _messageToken;
_messageToken = _mvxMessenger.Subscribe<ValuesChangedMessage>(async message =>
{
// use message.Valuea etc ..
});
More infos here -
https://www.mvvmcross.com/documentation/plugins/messenger?scroll=644
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HQdvrWWzkIk

In my case of trying to navigate in this pattern:
//pseudo code
"ModelA" => "ModelB<List<MyObject>>" => "ModelC<MyObject>"
OR
//pseudo code
"ModelA" => "ModelC<MyObject>"
I used the following work around in my ViewDestroy() override of ModelB<List>:
private bool destroyView = true;
public bool DestroyView
{
get => destroyView;
set
{
destroyView = value;
RaisePropertyChanged(() => DestroyView);
}
}
public override void ViewDestroy(bool viewFinishing)
{
viewFinishing = DestroyView;
base.ViewDestroy(viewFinishing);
}
private async Task ModifySelectedObject()
{
DestroyView = false;
MyObject obj = SelectedObject;
MyObject modifiedObj = await _navigationService.Navigate<ModifySingleViewModel, MyObject, MyObject>(new MyObject());
if (modifiedObj != null)
{
obj = modifiedObj;
}
else
{
await Application.Current.MainPage.DisplayAlert("", "No changes made.", "OK");
}
DestroyView = true;
}
This keeps the original
"await _navigationService.Navigate<ModifyMultipleViewModel,
List, List>(new MyObject);"
from ModelA open when navigating to ModelC from ModelB, but still allows the ViewDestroy Method to close otherwise.

Serializing Model using NewtonSoft in WPF Application

I am trying to serialize my model each second and push it to a server. I have set up a periodic task which executes each second. I call SendNewMessage to execute the push.
The first method call to SendNewMessage() which is called from the constructor runs fine with no exceptions or issues.
When the async task tries to call the SendNewMessage I get an exception and my application shuts down. It is the NewtonSoft code:
String PushModelToServer = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(this, jss); Which fails
Managed Debugging Assistant 'FatalExecutionEngineError' has detected a problem in
'C:\Users\snovva\Source\Workspaces\HMI\HMI.ViSoft\bin\x86\Debug\HMI.ViSoft.vshost.exe'.
Additional information: The runtime has encountered a fatal error. The address of the error was at 0x71041771, on thread 0x2788. The error code is 0xc0000005. This error may be a bug in the CLR or in the unsafe or non-verifiable portions of user code. Common sources of this bug include user marshaling errors for COM-interop or PInvoke, which may corrupt the stack.
public class Model : ModelBase
{
public Model ()
{
PeriodicTask.Run(() =>
{
SendNewMessage();
},
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
SendNewMessage();
}
public void SendNewMessage()
{
// Send the message
JsonSerializerSettings jss = new JsonSerializerSettings();
jss.Formatting = Newtonsoft.Json.Formatting.Indented;
String PushModelToServer = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(this, jss);
sendMessage(System.Text.Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(PushModelToServer));
}
}
public class PeriodicTask
{
public static async Task Run(Action action, TimeSpan period, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Delay(period, cancellationToken);
if (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
action();
}
}
public static Task Run(Action action, TimeSpan period)
{
return Run(action, period, CancellationToken.None);
}
}
More Info As requested:
The call on line 10 in the constructor runs. The serialization works the first time. Since the data in the model is changing I am pushing this model every second to update server. It is the async call which fails. As time passes the data in the model will change.

You can use [IgnoreDataMember] to avoid serializing properties that should not be included.
The code below works in my application, and should hopefully help you arrive at a solution for your app.
I am hoping that the code you show above is a snippet of your real code because there are some potential issues with the 1 second timer, re-entrancy, etc. Instead of doing this timer in the Model constructor, consider moving it to another function/class and setting up the timer/calls from an additional call you setup later...again, just some suggestions on arriving at a good pattern. Do more research here...
Here is how I get my data, what you want in your PushModelToServer:
public class BackupData
{
public List<Vehicles> Vehicles { get; private set; }
public List<FuelStops> FuelStops { get; private set; }
public BackupData(List<Vehicles> vehicles, List<FuelStops> fuelStops)
{
Vehicles = vehicles;
FuelStops = fuelStops;
}
public string ToJson(Formatting formatting = Formatting.None)
{
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(this, formatting);
return json;
}
public static BackupData FromJson(string jsonBackupData)
{
var data = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<BackupData>(jsonBackupData);
return data;
}
}
Here is a snippet of one of my classes:
[DebuggerDisplay("{VehicleName}")]
public class Vehicles : IComparable<Vehicles>, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private string id;
public string Id
{
get { return id; }
set
{
if (id != value) { id = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
}
private string vehicleName;
public string VehicleName
{
get { return vehicleName; }
set
{
if (vehicleName != value) { vehicleName = value; NotifyPropertyChanged(); }
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return VehicleName;
}
[IgnoreDataMember]
public UpdateState UpdateState { get; set; }
....
And here is how I get the data so I can use it anywhere I want:
#if WINDOWS_PHONE_APP
private void OnExecuteBackup(SettingsPage obj)
{
#else
private async Task<bool> OnExecuteBackup(SettingsPage obj)
{
#endif
var backupData = App.JournalModel.GetBackupData().ToJson(Formatting.Indented);
...
await SaveBackupFile(file, backupData);
...
public class JournalModel
{
...
public BackupData GetBackupData()
{
var data = new BackupData(Vehicles.ToList(), FuelStops.ToList());
return data;
}
...
Good luck with your project.

Well there must be something the the class You're trying to serialize, that makes the serializer go crazy. Maybe instead of serializing 'this' You should try serializing an actual 'DataObject' - something that can be serialized, and doesn't contain references to Timers, tasks, ect.. ?

How to implement Lazy loading with PostSharp?

I would like to implement lazy loading on properties with PostSharp.
To make it short, instead of writing
SomeType _field = null;
private SomeType Field
{
get
{
if (_field == null)
{
_field = LongOperation();
}
return _field;
}
}
I would like to write
[LazyLoadAspect]
private object Field
{
get
{
return LongOperation();
}
}
So, I identify that I need to emit some code in the class to generate the backing field, as well as inside the getter method in order to implement the test.
With PostSharp, I was considering overriding CompileTimeInitialize, but I am missing the knowledge to get a handle over the compiled code.
EDIT:
The question can be extended to any parameterless method like:
SomeType _lazyLoadedField = null;
SomeType LazyLoadableMethod ()
{
if(_lazyLoadedField ==null)
{
// Long operations code...
_lazyLoadedField = someType;
}
return _lazyLoadedField ;
}
would become
[LazyLoad]
SomeType LazyLoadableMethod ()
{
// Long operations code...
return someType;
}

After our comments, I think I know what you want now.
[Serializable]
public class LazyLoadGetter : LocationInterceptionAspect, IInstanceScopedAspect
{
private object backing;
public override void OnGetValue(LocationInterceptionArgs args)
{
if (backing == null)
{
args.ProceedGetValue();
backing = args.Value;
}
args.Value = backing;
}
public object CreateInstance(AdviceArgs adviceArgs)
{
return this.MemberwiseClone();
}
public void RuntimeInitializeInstance()
{
}
}
Test code
public class test
{
[LazyLoadGetter]
public int MyProperty { get { return LongOperation(); } }
}

Thanks to DustinDavis's answer and comments, I could work on my own implementation, and I just wanted here to share it to help other people.
The main differences from the original answer are:
Implement the suggested "only run the operation once" (purpose of the lock)
Made the initialization status of the backing field more reliable by passing this responsibility to a boolean.
Here is the code:
[Serializable]
public class LazyLoadAttribute : LocationInterceptionAspect, IInstanceScopedAspect
{
// Concurrent accesses management
private readonly object _locker = new object();
// the backing field where the loaded value is stored the first time.
private object _backingField;
// More reliable than checking _backingField for null as the result of the loading could be null.
private bool _hasBeenLoaded = false;
public override void OnGetValue(LocationInterceptionArgs args)
{
if (_hasBeenLoaded)
{
// Job already done
args.Value = _backingField;
return;
}
lock (_locker)
{
// Once the lock passed, we must check if the aspect has been loaded meanwhile or not.
if (_hasBeenLoaded)
{
args.Value = _backingField;
return;
}
// First call to the getter => need to load it.
args.ProceedGetValue();
// Indicate that we Loaded it
_hasBeenLoaded = true;
// store the result.
_backingField = args.Value;
}
}
public object CreateInstance(AdviceArgs adviceArgs)
{
return MemberwiseClone();
}
public void RuntimeInitializeInstance() { }
}

I think the requirement cannot be accurately described as 'lazy loading', but is a special case of a more general caching aspect with in-AppDomain storage but without eviction. A general caching aspect would be able to handle method parameters.

How to store Actions that do not prevent garbage collection of variables they use in scope

I'm trying to fix a garbage collection problem of a MVVM application which uses the following model of Undo stack.
The example is very minimalistic and real world code is much different, uses a factory class of undo lists per ViewModel instead of a single undolist but is representative:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Reflection;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Linq;
namespace ConsoleApplication9
{
public class UndoList
{
public bool IsUndoing { get; set; }
private Stack<Action> _undo = new Stack<Action>();
public Stack<Action> Undo
{
get { return _undo; }
set { _undo = value; }
}
private static UndoList _instance;
// singleton of the undo stack
public static UndoList Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new UndoList();
}
return _instance;
}
}
}
public class ViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
// execute the last undo operation
public void Undo()
{
UndoList.Instance.IsUndoing = true;
var action = UndoList.Instance.Undo.Pop();
action();
UndoList.Instance.IsUndoing = false;
}
// push an action into the undo stack
public void AddUndo(Action action)
{
if (UndoList.Instance.IsUndoing) return;
UndoList.Instance.Undo.Push(action);
}
// create push an action into the undo stack that resets a property value
public void AddUndo(string propertyName, object oldValue)
{
if (UndoList.Instance.IsUndoing) return;
var property = this.GetType().GetProperties().First(p => p.Name == propertyName);
Action action = () =>
{
property.SetValue(this, oldValue, null);
};
UndoList.Instance.Undo.Push(action);
}
}
public class TestModel : ViewModel
{
private bool _testProperty;
public bool TestProperty
{
get
{
return _testProperty;
}
set
{
base.AddUndo("TestProperty", _testProperty);
_testProperty = value;
}
}
// mock property indicating if a business action has been done for test
private bool _hasBusinessActionBeenDone;
public bool HasBusinessActionBeenDone
{
get
{
return _hasBusinessActionBeenDone;
}
set
{
_hasBusinessActionBeenDone = value;
}
}
public void DoBusinessAction()
{
AddUndo(() => { inverseBusinessAction(); });
businessAction();
}
private void businessAction()
{
// using fake property for brevity of example
this.HasBusinessActionBeenDone = true;
}
private void inverseBusinessAction()
{
// using fake property for brevity of example
this.HasBusinessActionBeenDone = false;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Test()
{
var vm = new TestModel();
// test undo of property
vm.TestProperty = true;
vm.Undo();
Debug.Assert(vm.TestProperty == false);
// test undo of business action
vm.DoBusinessAction();
vm.Undo();
Debug.Assert(vm.HasBusinessActionBeenDone == false);
// do it once more without Undo, so the undo stack has something
vm.DoBusinessAction();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program.Test();
GC.Collect(GC.MaxGeneration, GCCollectionMode.Forced);
// at this point UndoList.Instance.Undo
// contains an Action which references the TestModel
// which will never be collected...
// in real world code knowing when to clear this is a problem
// because it is a singleton factory class for undolists per viewmodel type
// ideally would be to clear the list when there are no more references
// to the viewmodel type in question, but the Actions in the list prevent that
}
}
}
You see that when any viewModel goes out of scope the actions in the UndoList keep references to them. The real code groups various viewmodels into grouped undolists (viewModels that contain child viewmodels share the same undo stack), so it is difficult to know when and where to put the clearing.
I was wondering if there is some method to make those actions expire if they are the only one keeping references to the variables inside them?
Suggestions welcome!

I've got a solution for you. I don't like the use of the UndoList as a singleton, but I've kept it to provide you with a direct answer to your question. In practice I wouldn't use a singleton.
Now, you will find it very difficult to avoid capturing references to your view models in your actions. It would make your code very ugly if you tried. The best approach is to make your view models implement IDisposable and make sure that you dispose of them when they go out of scope. Remember that the garbage collector never calls Dispose so you must.
Using IDisposable is the standard model for cleaning up when an
instance is no longer needed.
So the first thing to define is a helper class that executes an action when it is disposed.
public sealed class AnonymousDisposable : IDisposable
{
private readonly Action _dispose;
private int _isDisposed;
public AnonymousDisposable(Action dispose)
{
_dispose = dispose;
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref _isDisposed, 1) == 0)
{
_dispose();
}
}
}
Now I can write things like this to remove elements from lists:
var disposable = new AnonymousDisposable(() => list.Remove(item));
Later, when I call disposable.Dispose() the item is removed from the list.
Now here's your code re-implemented.
I've changed UndoList to be a static class, not a singleton. You can change it back if need be.
public static class UndoList
{
public static bool IsUndoing { get; private set; }
private static List<Action> _undos = new List<Action>();
public static IDisposable AddUndo(Action action)
{
var disposable = (IDisposable)null;
if (!IsUndoing)
{
disposable = new AnonymousDisposable(() => _undos.Remove(action));
_undos.Add(action);
}
return disposable ?? new AnonymousDisposable(() => { });
}
public static bool Undo()
{
IsUndoing = true;
var result = _undos.Count > 0;
if (result)
{
var action = _undos[_undos.Count - 1];
_undos.Remove(action);
action();
}
IsUndoing = false;
return result;
}
}
You'll notice that I've replaced the stack with a list. I did that because I need to remove items from inside the list.
Also, you can see that AddUndo now returns an IDisposable. Calling code needs to keep the return disposable and call Dispose when it wants to remove the action from the list.
I've also internalized the Undo action. It didn't make sense to have it in the view model. Calling Undo effectively pops the top item off of the list and executes the action and returns true. However, if the list is empty it returns false. You can use this for testing purposes.
The ViewModel class now looks like this:
public class ViewModel : IDisposable, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public ViewModel()
{
_disposables = new List<IDisposable>();
_disposable = new AnonymousDisposable(() =>
_disposables.ForEach(d => d.Dispose()));
}
private readonly List<IDisposable> _disposables;
private readonly IDisposable _disposable;
public void Dispose()
{
_disposable.Dispose();
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void AddUndo(Action action)
{ ... }
protected void SetUndoableValue<T>(Action<T> action, T newValue, T oldValue)
{ ... }
}
It implements IDisposable and internally, keeps track of a list of disposables and an anonymous disposable that will dispose of the items in the list when the view model itself is disposed of. Whew! A mouthful, but I hope that makes sense.
The AddUndo method body is this:
protected void AddUndo(Action action)
{
var disposable = (IDisposable)null;
Action inner = () =>
{
_disposables.Remove(disposable);
action();
};
disposable = UndoList.AddUndo(inner);
_disposables.Add(disposable);
}
Internally it calls UndoList.AddUndo passing in an action that will remove the returned IDisposable from the view model's list of undo actions when UndoList.Undo() is called - as well as, importantly, actually executing the action.
So this means that when the view model is disposed all of its outstanding undo actions are removed from the undo list and when Undo is called the associated disposable is removed from the view model. And this ensures that you are not keeping references to the view model when it is disposed of.
I created a helper function called SetUndoableValue that replaced your void AddUndo(string propertyName, object oldValue) method which wasn't strongly-typed and could cause you to have run-time errors.
protected void SetUndoableValue<T>(Action<T> action, T newValue, T oldValue)
{
this.AddUndo(() => action(oldValue));
action(newValue);
}
I made both of these methods protected as public seemed too promiscuous.
The TestModel is more-or-less the same:
public class TestModel : ViewModel
{
private bool _testProperty;
public bool TestProperty
{
get { return _testProperty; }
set
{
this.SetUndoableValue(v => _testProperty = v, value, _testProperty);
}
}
public bool HasBusinessActionBeenDone { get; set; }
public void DoBusinessAction()
{
this.AddUndo(this.inverseBusinessAction);
businessAction();
}
private void businessAction()
{
this.HasBusinessActionBeenDone = true;
}
private void inverseBusinessAction()
{
this.HasBusinessActionBeenDone = false;
}
}
And finally, here's the code that tests the UndoList functions correctly:
using (var vm = new TestModel())
{
Debug.Assert(UndoList.Undo() == false);
vm.TestProperty = true;
Debug.Assert(UndoList.Undo() == true);
Debug.Assert(UndoList.Undo() == false);
Debug.Assert(vm.TestProperty == false);
vm.DoBusinessAction();
Debug.Assert(UndoList.Undo() == true);
Debug.Assert(vm.HasBusinessActionBeenDone == false);
vm.DoBusinessAction();
}
Debug.Assert(UndoList.Undo() == false);
Please let me know if I can provide any more detail on anything.

If you can't clean it up any other way you could use WeakReference to hold property, but I think there would be other issues because this would still cause a Action instance to exist with a null reference attached to it.
As a quick look I would be more inclined to use the singleton to hold a registration to the model and let the model manage a instance list of all the undo actions attached to it. When the model goes out of scope call a clean-up method on it or implement a IDisposable type interface on it may if this fits. However depending on the implementation you may not need the singleton anyway.