We Keep Coding

User input validation in MVP pattern

I want to validate the details provided by the user before taking them into the processing.
My UIs have Text boxes, Combos mainly. In some fields, user must provide data, in some fields only certain type of data may will be accepted like texts, Dates/times, numbers etc. When it comes to date/ time we should check whether the provided values are in the valid range.
My question are
Q1. Where to do validation in MVP pattern?
My options are
Implement validation as a service available to Presenters. (Through DI for ex.)
Do the validation in the UI itself in a event like KeyPress.
Presenter itself handles the validation.
Q2. How to do the validation.
My options are
i. All controllers like text boxes in the View are encapsulated in properties (Getters / Setters)
public string Age
{
get { return txtAge.Text; }
set { txtAge.Text = value; }
}
ii. UI fires the event Validate(sender, e)
iii. Presenter listen and hook it up to the handler which then invokes Validate() method
iv. In Validate() method it'll detect the controller raised the event (sender) and read the corresponding property to get the value in the controller.
v. Then it will check the type against the type in the model and decide the validity and then alert the user
The problem here is that I may have to expose all controllers through string properties as other wise it will give exceptions when the user enters an invalid type.
If I do something like this
public int Age
{
get { return Convert.ToInt32(txtAge.Text); }
set { txtAge.Text = Convert.ToString(value); }
}
Then the problem would be the presenter cannot do the validation as already its converted to int?

Where to do validation in MVP pattern
Implement validation as a service available to Presenters. (Through DI for ex.)
Do the validation in the UI itself in a event like KeyPress.
Presenter itself handles the validation.
It depends - there is no "one size fits all", you have to make a decision for each kind of validation.
Think of what will happen if you change the View layer by a different one (with a different UI technology). This mental model helps to make the right decision, even if you use only one kind of UI. If the validations could be done in the presenter, they will available for every kind of view, without the need of reimplementing them. On the other hand, it is not wise to make too many assumptions in your presenter layer about the available events of the specific UI.
So as a general rule: put the validations into the view which depend on the specific UI (for example, validating directly for each "KeyPress" is a typical candidate for validation in the view). Put validations in the presenter which will be the same for each different View layer (type checking is an edge case, see below). If you have validation code which might be reused between different presenters, put that code into a helper class or service. And if this has to be a service provided by "DI" depends mainly if it is a very complex validation which needs to access the database or something like that.
Q2. How to do the validation.
[in case of type conversions]
Actually, if possible, avoid the necessity of doing type checking at the presenter level by restricting what the user can enter at the UI level. Most modern UIs (desktop and web as well) provide mechanics to forbid the entering of data if the data does not match a certain type. For example, use a specific number edit field. If such a thing is not available in the specific UI technology, you could still implement a type validation mechanics for each edit field only at the UI level, without involving the presenter. So I see this best handled at the View level.
Of course, similar types of validation (like a range check) might be better handled at the presenter level, since the test would be always the same, whatever View implementation you have. So they are better placed at the presenter level. But a range check does not provide you with the type conversion problem given in your question.

How to avoid a databinding / events hell on a complex screen?

This is more of an architecture / design question.
I have run into a few projects in the past written in WPF/Windows Forms, etc. that have complex screens with a lot of fields and these fields are connected to each other (their values depend on each other with some logic involved).
These projects I have taken on after they were implemented, and I found a lot of events / data bind hell - what I mean by this is that because all these fields are depending on others they have implemented INotifyPropertyChanged and other fields are being modified as a result. This causes the same fields being updated 5-6 times when the screen loads and the order in which fields are populated causes horrible bugs. (For example, Date was set before Job Type, instead of after Job Type, so I end up with a different Job Fee.)
To make matters worse, some hacks are implemented on UI events (for example, DropDown changed to update field X) while others are in the domain model that the UI binds to.
Basically, it's a huge mess, and I just want to know what the best way to implement something like this is if I was to start from scratch. Or is it a good idea to avoid such a complex screen in the first place?

I would try to keep the business logic out of the property setters as much as possible.
First of all, if several properties are needed for one calculation, I'd write one method that does the calculation, and call that method when appropriate. E.g. if all different combinations of property values make sense, one could just call the method in the setters of each property, making sure that the same code runs any time one of the properties is changed. If you only can evaluate special combinations of property values, you could either implement a command and let the user decide when to calculate the resulting changes, or you could provide feedback through validation, and only evaluate the property changes if the combination is valid. If there are several interdependent properties, I often use a "ChangeInitiator" variable to indicate what property has changed, so that it is clear in the calculation method which property is responsible for the change and which others should change as a result. Basically, this is the same as doing one part of the calculation in each property setter, but I find that it helps me to keep an overview of things if the different parts of the relationship are all in one method.
In a program I wrote once, I had some calculations running on a background thread periodically, so I would just set a flag whenever a piece of data changed that required a new calculation, and do all the updates based on a timer every second or so... that could also help you get the logic more straight, and it avoids to have the calculation run several times for one set of related changes.
With regard to change notification, I'd really try to only use it for UI data binding.

We have fairly complex UIs (including several related fields of different types in, say for example a Row in a DataGrid) and the MVVM pattern has worked pretty well for us. All the properties coming from the Model and exposed to the View that have complex logic related are "wrapped" by an equivalent property in the ViewModel, which has no Backing Field, but rather points directly to the Model:
public class SomeComplexViewModel
{
public SomeModel Model {get;set;}
public string SomeCrazyProperty
{
get
{
return Model.SomeCrazyProperty;
}
{
Model.SomeCrazyProperty = value;
//... Some crazy logic here, potentially modifying some other properties as well.
}
}
}
<TextBox Text="{Binding SomeCrazyProperty}"/>
This removes the "initial value" problem, as the initial value read by the Binding is actually the real value coming from the Model, and thus the logic placed in the Setter is executed only when needed.
Then, for dummy properties (which have no logic behind), we bind directly from the View to the Model:
<TextBox Text="{Binding Model.SomeRegularProperty}"/>
This reduces the bloat in the ViewModel.
With regard to events in the code behind, I totally avoid that. My code behind files are almost always one InitializeComponent() and nothing else.
Only View-Specific logic is placed in the code behind (such as animations stuff, etc), when it cannot be directly done in XAML, or is easier to do in code (which is not the case most of the time).
Edit:
It's important to mention that the winforms binding capabilities are a joke compared to the XAML-based ones. could that be the cause you're seeing those horrible messes in those projects?

Is there a best practice way to validate user input? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Is there a best practice way to validate user input?
Actual Problem:
A user gives certain inputs in a window. When he is done with those inputs, he can click 'create'. Now, a pop up message should be shown with all invalid input given. If no invalid input, then just continue.
I could easily do this in the Form class. But I remember some best practice way of validating the input in the set properties. Problem is that I already created an instance of that class (or otherwise, can't set properties ;) ) if I validate this way. That should not happen, no instance of the class may be created unless input is valid.
I was planning to create a ErrorMessages class that contains a list where I can put all errorMessages. Every time an invalid input is given, a new message is added to the errorMessages list. So if user click's 'create' button, all messages in the list are shown. Is this a good way of handling things?
So is there a best practice way? Any design patterns that provide such solution?
Edit: This is a school task. So with illogical requirements. I HAVE to show all invalid inputs when I click 'create'. I would like to do this out of Form class. (So validation works even without GUI, I did't even create the GUI yet at this point). First making sure my functionality works correctly ;). I want to keep my code clean, abstract and OOP. So how should I show my error messages?

I was planning to create a ErrorMessages class that contains a list where I can put all errorMessages. Every time an invalid input is given, a new message is added to the errorMessages list. So if user click's 'create' button, all messages in the list are shown. Is this a good way of handling things?
Subjectively, I think it would be better to provide instant feedback that the value the user entered is invalid. That way, they can immediately go back and fix it.
I mean, think about it. The approach you propose would literally give them a giant list of problems at the end, which is not very user-friendly. Besides, how are they going to remember all of those problems to be able to go back and fix them one at a time? (Hint: they're not.)
Instead, I recommend using the ErrorProvider class to display any errors right next to the appropriate control. I talked a little bit more about this approach in my answer here and here.
Of course, you'll still need to make sure upon final submission (clicking the OK/Submit button) that all the input is valid, but then that's just a simple case of checking for the presence of any errors.
I could easily do this in the Form class. But I remember some best practice way of validating the input in the set properties.
Yes, the idea here is encapsulation. The Form class should only know about form stuff. It shouldn't be required to know what kind of input is/is not valid for all of your different controls.
Instead, this validation logic should be placed elsewhere, such as in a class that stores your data. That class would expose public properties to get and set the data, and inside of the setter method, it would verify the data.
That means that all your Form has to do is call a setter method on your data class. The Form needs to know nothing about how to validate the data, or even what the data means, because the data class handles all of that.
That should not happen, no instance of the class may be created unless input is valid.
If this is indeed the case, you will need to provide a constructor for the class that accepts as parameters all of the data it needs. The body of the constructor will then validate the specified data and throw an exception if any of it is invalid. The exception will prevent the class from being created, ensuring that no instance of a class that contains invalid data ever exists.
Such a class would probably not have setter methods at all—only getters.
However, this is kind of an unusual requirement in the world of C# (however common it may be in C++). Generally, placing your validation code inside of the setters works just fine.
My properties have some private setters. So they only get set in the constructor of my data class. Problem is now that this seems to make my validation not eassy
Why would that change anything? You still handle the validation inside of the private setters. If validation fails, you throw an exception. Because the constructor doesn't handle the exception, it continues bubbling up out of that method to the code that attempted to instantiate the object. If that code wants to handle the exception (e.g., to display an error message to the user), it can do so.
Granted, throwing an exception in the case of invalid input is not necessarily a "best practice". The reason is that exceptions should generally be reserved for unexpected conditions, and users screwing up and providing you with invalid data is, well, to be expected. However:
This is the only option you have for data validation inside of a constructor, because constructors can't return values.
The cost of exception handling is basically negligible in UI code since modern computers can process exceptions faster than users can perceive on-screen changes.

This is a simple requirement but sometimes being debated. This is my "current" approach how to deal with validation. I have not yet used this approach, and this is just a concept. This approach need to be developed more
First, create a custom validation attributes
public class ValidationAttribute : Attribute{
public type RuleType{get;set;}
public string Rule{get;set;}
public string[] RuleValue{get;set;}
}
Second, create a custom error handler / message
public class ValidationResult{
public bool IsSuccess{get;set;};
public string[] ErrorMessages{get;set;};
}
Then create a validator
public class RuleValidator{
public ValidationResult Validate(object o){
ValidationResult result = new ValidationResult();
List<string> validationErrors = new List<string>();
PropertyInfo[] properties = o.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach(PropertyInfo prop in properties){
// validate here
// if error occur{
validationErrors.Add(string.Format("ErrorMessage at {0}", prop.Name));
//}
}
result.ErrorMessages = validationErrors.ToArray();
}
}
To use it, then you can do like this:
public class Person{
[ValidationAttribute(typeof(string), "Required", "true")]
public string Name{get;set;}
[ValidationAttribute(typeof(int), "Min", "1")]
public int Age{get;set;}
}
To call the validator
public void ValidatePerson(Person person){
RuleValidator validator = new RuleValidator();
ValidationResult result = validator.Validate(person);
// generate the error message here, use result.ErrorMessages as source
}
What is the advantage:
You can use in any application platform (Winforms, Asp.Net, WCF,
etc)
You can set the rule in attribute-level
It can do automated validation
This approach can be used with DependencyInjection with custom
validators to separate validation logics
The disadvantage:
Hard to create the validators
If not handled well, the validators can become very large in number
Bad performance due to use of reflection

See the ErrorProvider class (documentation here). It provides a set of standard visual indicators that can be attached to most of the standard WinForms controls.

There are several possible approaches:
Use "instant" validation.
When user enters value it is checked during input (TextChanged) and validated right away. Create instance of a new class, call property/method what should accept string and return bool (or throw Exception in case of property), on false - draw special error condition (red label next to text box, something blinking, ErrorProvider or whatever you can do what should tell user "wrong!").
This one I like to use, but a bit differently, usually I only check Type and then just trying to parse it straight away in the form. It is possible to abstract more if form operate with the string's and all formattings and validation occurs in the class (property setters). Or you can supply form with additional information (by using query methods or attributes) so it can do instant validation without need to instantiate class or using setters. As example, double factor property can be identified in the form (or even control) to perform 'double.Parseand you can have attributeDefaultValuewhich can be used to display to the user value in the different way when it's different from default (like it is done byPropertyGrid`).
Use normal validation.
When user finished input, validate (by trying to set value and catching exception), if wrong - user can't "leave" or "progress" until he press ESC (to cancel changes) or correct his input to pass validation.
This one I dislike. Idea of holding user annoy me (and user ofc). Also it is hard to implement cross checks (like if you have Min and Max values, then user will be pushed to increase "right" one first, otherwise invalidation will fail).
Use "ok" validation.
That just means let user to enter everything and only validate when he clicks "Ok" button.
I think combining "Ok" button and interactive instant validation is the best for the user. As user knows where he made a mistake through input, but still is free to browse and only will get a "slap" from validation after clicking "Ok" button (at which step you can simply show him first of errors he did, not necessary to show them all).
Error messages can be provided by setters in the old-fashion LastError way or as a text in the Exception.

Pass validation errors from service to controller

In my web app i have service layer responsible for all logic (like registering, etc.). I wanted to implement server-side validation for my forms. The thing is i can't just throw an exception every time i catch invalid data, because if user typed incorrect email AND password, my service method would just throw exception as soon as it checks email, and password error would be noticed only after user corrected email and resubmitted form. I want my entire form validated at once. The important thing is: i need only to pass error types, display messages must be added to ModelState in controller. I have some ideas and i would like you to help me decide which one is better from performance and good-practice point of view (maybe none - maybe there is another solution superior to all posted by me).
Ideas:
Collect errors in a dictionary and then throw single exception
containing all model errors in form of key-value (ex. "Password", "Must
be >5 signs"). In controller i catch error, and read all entries using switch() to detect error type and add proper message to ModelState.
Pros: uses built-in Exception.Data dictionary
Cons: need to decipher error type from the string
Similar to previous, but i create custom exception class, which has additional field-enum dictionary (ex. "Password", ValidationEnum.LessThanFiveSignsError).
Pros: Enums are more elegant solution for switch() operations
Cons: need to implement custom exception to do something that built-in exception class could do actually
Custom exception with dictionary, but with exceptions instead of enums - i create classes like StringTooShortException and UsernameAlreadyExistsException and add them to dictionary (ex. "Password", new StringTooShortException()). Switch would probably need to check type object...
Pros: i use exceptions? the more i think about it the more i believe this is not a good idea...
Cons: pass objects Exception subclass (with all Exception class attributes and stuff) and only use information of what type is that object?
Make my every service method return custom class containing {object regularReturnValueDependingOnMethod, MyCustomErrorContainer canBeListOfEnumsOrSomething}. Basic difference between this and previous ideas is that i don't throw an exception just to carry my error container up to controller, i use proper workflow.
Pros: doesn't throw exception, just returns validation errors to controller, uses proper workflow to pass values
Cons: isn't it too much to wrap return value of every method just to pass validation errors back to controller? maybe validation error is exactly the kind of situation, where i should use exception to carry a message to controller (whatever that message could be: a text string or, in this case, an entire object)
Don't wrap return value, just create validation error container in controller and pass it to service as "out" parameter
Pros: simple
Cons: need to create error container instance before calling any service method (ok, just ones which validate input). is it elegant?
What do you think? Which one is best? I'm not interested in just getting it done. I want to get it done the way it should be done. I want to learn good programming behavior :)
Thanks for any help :)
//edit:
My latest thought: I could create another service method just for validation purpose (ex. method: RegisterUser() for registration, and ValidateRegisterUser() for model validation, i would just have to make sure to call validation method before i call regular method. What do you think?

Properties vs Methods

Quick question: When do you decide to use properties (in C#) and when do you decide to use methods?
We are busy having this debate and have found some areas where it is debatable whether we should use a property or a method. One example is this:
public void SetLabel(string text)
{
Label.Text = text;
}
In the example, Label is a control on a ASPX page. Is there a principle that can govern the decision (in this case) whether to make this a method or a property.
I'll accept the answer that is most general and comprehensive, but that also touches on the example that I have given.

From the Choosing Between Properties and Methods section of Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries:
In general, methods represent actions and properties represent data. Properties are meant to be used like fields, meaning that properties should not be computationally complex or produce side effects. When it does not violate the following guidelines, consider using a property, rather than a method, because less experienced developers find properties easier to use.

Yes, if all you're doing is getting and setting, use a property.
If you're doing something complex that may affect several data members, a method is more appropriate. Or if your getter takes parameters or your setter takes more than a value parameter.
In the middle is a grey area where the line can be a little blurred. There is no hard and fast rule and different people will sometimes disagree whether something should be a property or a method. The important thing is just to be (relatively) consistent with how you do it (or how your team does it).
They are largely interchangeable but a property signals to the user that the implementation is relatively "simple". Oh and the syntax is a little cleaner.
Generally speaking, my philosophy is that if you start writing a method name that begins with get or set and takes zero or one parameter (respectively) then it's a prime candidate for a property.

Searching through MSDN, I found a reference on Properties vs Methods that provides some great guidelines for creating methods:
The operation is a conversion, such as Object.ToString.
The operation is expensive enough that you want to communicate to the
user that they should consider caching
the result.
Obtaining a property value using the get accessor would have an observable
side effect.
Calling the member twice in succession produces different results.
The order of execution is important. Note that a type's properties should
be able to be set and retrieved in any
order.
The member is static but returns a value that can be changed.
The member returns an array. Properties that return arrays can be
very misleading. Usually it is
necessary to return a copy of the
internal array so that the user cannot
change internal state. This, coupled
with the fact that a user can easily
assume it is an indexed property,
leads to inefficient code.

If you're setting an actual property of your object then you use a property.
If you're performing a task / functionality then you use a method.
In your example, it is a definite property being set.
If however, your functionality was to AppendToLabel then you would use a method.

Properties are a way to inject or retrieve data from an object. They create an abstraction over variables or data within a class. They are analogous to getters and setters in Java.
Methods encapsulate an operation.
In general I use properties to expose single bits of data, or small calculations on a class, like sales tax. Which is derived from the number of items and their cost in a shopping cart.
I use methods when I create an operation, like retrieving data from the database. Any operation that has moving parts, is a candidate for a method.
In your code example I would wrap it in a property if I need to access it outside it's containing class:
public Label Title
{
get{ return titleLabel;}
set{ titleLabel = value;}
}
Setting the text:
Title.Text = "Properties vs Methods";
If I was only setting the Text property of the Label this is how I would do it:
public string Title
{
get{ return titleLabel.Text;}
set{ titleLabel.Text = value;}
}
Setting the text:
Title = "Properties vs Methods";

Symantically properties are attributes of your objects.
Methods are behaviors of your object.
Label is an attribute and it makes more sense to make it a property.
In terms of Object Oriented Programming you should have a clear understanding of what is part of behavior and what is merely an attribute.
Car { Color, Model, Brand }
A car has Color, Model and Brand attributes therefore it does not make sense to have a method SetColor or SetModel because symantically we do not ask Car to set its own color.
So if you map the property/method case to the real life object or look at it from symantic view point, your confusion will really go away.

You need only look at the very name... "Property". What does it mean? The dictionary defines it in many ways, but in this case "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing" fits best.
Think about the purpose of the action. Are you, in fact, altering or retrieving "an essential or distinctive attribute"? In your example, you are using a function to set a property of a textbox. That seems kind of silly, does it not?
Properties really are functions. They all compile down to getXXX() and setXXX(). It just hides them in syntactic sugar, but it's sugar that provides a semantic meaning to the process.
Think about properties like attributes. A car has many attributes. Color, MPG, Model, etc.. Not all properties are setable, some are calculatable.
Meanwhile, a Method is an action. GetColor should be a property. GetFile() should be a function. Another rule of thumb is, if it doesn't change the state of the object, then it should be a function. For example, CalculatePiToNthDigit(n) should be a function, because it's not actually changing the state of the Math object it's attached to.
This is maybe rambling a bit, but it really boils down to deciding what your objects are, and what they represent. If you can't figure out if it should be a property or function, maybe it doesn't matter which.

Properties should only be simple set and get one liners. Anything more and it should really be moved to a method. Complex code should always be in methods.

I only use properties for variable access, i.e. getting and setting individual variables, or getting and setting data in controls. As soon as any kind of data manipulation is needed/performed, I use methods.

As a matter of design Properties represent Data or Attributes of class object, While methods are actions or behaviors of class object.
In .Net, world there are other implications of using Properties:
Properties are used in Databinding, while get_ / set_ methods are not.
XML serialization user properties as natural mechanism of serilization.
Properties are accessed by PropertyGrid control and intern ICustomTypeDescriptor, which can be used effectively if you are writing a custom library.
Properties are controlled by Attributes, one can use it wisely to design Aspect Oriented softwares.
Misconceptions (IMHO) about Properties' usage:
Used to expose small calculations: ControlDesigner.SelectionRules's get block runs into 72 lines!!
Used to expose internal Data structures: Even if a property does not map to an internal data member, one can use it as property, if its an attribute of your class. Viceversa, even if its an attribute of your class properties are not advisable, to return array like data members (instead methods are used to return deep copy of members.)
In the example here it could have been written, with more business meaning as:
public String Title
{
set { Label.Text = text; }
}

Also big plus for Properties is that value of property can be seen in Visual Studio during debugging.

I prefer to use properties for add/set methods with 1 parameter. If parameters are more, use methods.

Properties are really nice because they are accessible in the visual designer of visual studio, provided they have access.
They use be used were you are merely setting and getting and perhaps some validation that does not access a significant amount of code. Be careful because creating complex objects during validation is not simple.
Anything else methods are the preferred way.
It's not just about semantics. Using properties inappropriate start having weirdness occur in the visual studio visual designer.
For instance I was getting a configuration value within a property of a class. The configuration class actually opens a file and runs an sql query to get the value of that configuration. This caused problems in my application where the configuration file would get opened and locked by visual studio itself rather than my application because was not only reading but writing the configuration value (via the setter method). To fix this I just had to change it to a method.

Here is a good set of guidelines for when to use properties vs methods from Bill Wagner
Use a Property when all these are true:
The getters should be simple and thus unlikely to throw exceptions. Note that this implies no network (or database) access. Either might fail, and therefore would throw an exception.
They should not have dependencies on each other. Note that this would include setting one property and having it affect another. (For example, setting the FirstName property would affect a read-only FullName property that composed the first name + last name properties implies such a dependency )
They should be settable in any order
The getter does not have an observable side effect Note this guideline doesn't preclude some forms of lazy evaluation in a property.
The method must always return immediately. (Note that this precludes a property that makes a database access call, web service call, or other similar operation).
Use a method if the member returns an array.
Repeated calls to the getter (without intervening code) should return the same value.
Repeated calls to the setter (with the same value) should yield no difference from a single call.
The get should not return a reference to internal data structures (See item 23). A method could return a deep copy, and could avoid this issue.
*Taken from my answer to a duplicate question.

This is simple.
1: use property when you want your data should be validated before storing in field. So in this way property provides encapsulation for your fields. Because if you leave your fields public end user may assign any value which may or may not be valid as per your business requirement like age should be greater than 18. So before value is store corresponding field we need to check its validity. In this way properties represent data.
2: Use method when you want perform some action like you are supplying some data as parameter and your method is doing some processing on the basis of supplied values and returning processed value as output. Or you want to change value of some field by this calculation. "In this way method represents action".

I come from java an i used get.. set.. method for a while.
When i write code, i don't ask to my self: "accessing this data is simple or require a heavy process?" because things can change (today retrive this property is simple, tomonrow can require some or heavy process).
Today i have a method SetAge(int age) tomonrow i will have also method SetAge(date birthdate) that calculate the age using the birthdate.
I was very disappointed that the compiler transform property in get and set but don't consider my Get... and Set.. methods as the same.