We Keep Coding

Acumatica Customization - How to remove anonymous delegate from PXGraph.RowInsertingEvents Collection?

I‘m working on customization that involves adding extra Sales Person transactions when Cancelling/Correcting an Invoice. As part of the development effort, I have identified that the common method that’s called by both the processes – Cancel Invoice and Correct Invoice, is ReverseDocumentAndApplyToReversalIfNeeded in the Graph PX.Objects.AR.ARInvoiceEntry.
I have the custom code to add new salespersons to the ARInvoiceEntry.salesPerTrans view but when I do after ReverseDocumentAndApplyToReversalIfNeeded runs, I see that my code doesn’t insert the new records to the view and doesn’t give any error. After much troubleshooting, I’ve found out that there’s a line of code in the method ReverseInvoiceProc of ARInvoiceEntry.cs that stops from inserting a new row. Here’s that line of code:
this.RowInserting.AddHandler<ARSalesPerTran>((sender, e) => { e.Cancel = true; });
It’s an anonymous delegate that’s added.
I would like to know how can I get hold of this anonymous handler in my custom code so that I can:
Remove that anonymous handler
Do my custom logic of adding new rows
Add the anonymous delegate back to the RowInsertingEvents list
I tried to look in the Acumatica code repository but couldn’t find anything that would help me remove anonymous delegate. What I can find was the removal of named handlers, like the below example:
APPaymentEntry pe = CreateInstance<APPaymentEntry>();
pe.RowSelecting.RemoveHandler<APPayment>(pe.APPayment_RowSelecting);
So please let me know how can I dynamically remove that anonymous handler from within my custom code. I have reference to the ARInvoiceEntry graph through the Base property of my extension graph. If you can redirect me to a specific page in the Acumatica Code repository, that would work as well.

I do not think you could remove this anonymous method from there in a easy way.
However, one approach you could implement is to override the "ReverseDocumentAndApplyToReversalIfNeeded" method and call base method there.
After this you could create a new instance of the ARinvoiceEntry graph (in that same override after calling base method), select the primary record(header) and then try to make your second insert ( this way to avoid the ReverseInvoiceProc.)

Storing viewmodel data in Session creates problems with validation using FluentValidation

I'm currently working on a large project involving Sitecore CMS (7.2). For viewmodel validation we are using FluentValidations. Because of the combination of Sitecore and FluentValidations I seem to be running in some kind of technical deadlock. I sort-of found a solution myself, but I'm not sure whether this is the right approach or not. Here's the problem:
Situation
There is a Sitecore component which contains a HTML form. Via the modelbinder each value of this form is binded to it's corresponding field in the (complex) viewmodel. This is standard .NET MVC approach.
However, some values in the viewmodel are NOT part of the form. For instance, a date at which the mutation will be applied is calculated by the application. The user can only see this date-value as plain text, and thus can not edit it. It's still part of the viewmodel though. To make sure this value is being posted back to the model in code, one would normally use a hidden field. But if I use a hidden field, it means that users are able to spoof that date and because some validations depend on this value, they are able to spoof the entire validity of the form.
Moreover, in the same viewmodel I have a list of complex objects that I can't simply put in a hidden field (or I should serialize it to JSON, which I don't want).
The conclusion is that I need to store this data somewhere else. Somewhere the user can't spoof it, but I'm still able to validate user input with FluentValidations. I therefore decided to put the entire viewmodel in the users Session, and delete it directly after a succesful mutation.
Problem
By using session data I run into problems. Let's first see these steps:
(GET) Viewmodel is created. Calculated date is set and list of complex types is retrieved once from a (slow) webservice.
Entire viewmodel is stored as session data.
Form is shown to the user, who fills the form. Some data is only shown as readonly, like the date and list of complex types.
User submits form, FluentValidations kicks in to validate the data (POST).
That's where I run into problems. The validation done by FluentValidations kicks in before it reaches the POST controller method. That's exactly the way we want it, because that means validation errors are automatically added to the ModelState. However, because of security reasons I don't want to add this data as hidden fields to the cshtml file, which means they are empty at the time FluentValidations is going to validate the form.
This is creating problems because some of the form validations rely on the missing data. What I basically want is to merge the viewmodel that is stored in the session with the viewmodel that was posted to the controller method. But I have to do that before FluentValidations is going to do it's work.
My current solution
Gladly, I learned about FluentValidation's IValidatorInterceptor: an interface that can be used to 'do stuff' before or after the validations process kicks in. I used the BeforeMvcValidation method to do my merging process. The code is as follows:
public ValidationContext BeforeMvcValidation(ControllerContext controllerContext, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
if (controllerContext.HttpContext.Session == null)
return validationContext;
var sessionData = controllerContext.HttpContext.Session["some_identifier"];
if (sessionData == null)
return validationContext;
var mergedObjectToValidate = Utils.MergeViewModelData(sessionData, validationContext.InstanceToValidate);
// Unfortunately, we have to do this..
var privateSetterProperty = validationContext.GetType().GetProperty(ValidationContextInstancePropertyName);
if (privateSetterProperty == null)
return validationContext;
privateSetterProperty.SetValue(validationContext, mergedObjectToValidate);
return validationContext;
}
Basically this interceptor method allows me to do my merging-process before validation. So I thought I had the solution here, but as you can see I am using reflection to set a property. That is because the property InstanceToValidate in the ValidationContext object has a private setter. I simply can not set it without using reflection. Which is, obviously, a bit dirty.
It does work exactly as I want though! :) I do not need any hidden fields that can be spoofed (which is horrible for straight-trough-processing) and I can still use FluentValidations exactly as I always did before. Also, the MVC modelbinding-process is left untouched, which I prefer.
The actual question
So the above solution works exactly as you want so what are your questions?! Well, simple:
I'm using reflection to set a private property in a 3rd party library (FluentValidations). The obvious answer is: don't go that way. But in this case it works flawlessly. If the InstanceToValidate-property had a public setter, I wouldn't even be posting this question at all: I would feel like I nailed it. But unfortunately it is private, so are there any real reasons why I shouldn't do this, maybe someone being an expert in FluentValidations behaviour?
Let's say there is a genuine reason why I shouldn't go this way; is there another approach which has the same effect? Can I hook in even earlier, so before FluentValidations kicks in, perhaps some kind of 'hook' just after the MVC model-binding process but before validation kicks in?
Is this entire approach simply wrong and should I tackle it in a completely different way?
Thanks!

Save value of custom field type

I am new to SharePoint developement and have a few startup problems which I hope you will help me with.
I am trying to make a custom field type and I am using WPS builder to create the project. Right now I have the following files which are all compiling just fine :)
SuperLookup3.cs
SuperLookup3Control.cs
SuperLookup3FieldEditor.cs
SuperLookup3FieldEditor.ascx (controltemplate)
fldtypes_SuperLookup3.xml (XML)
I have tried look at this example but I just can't get it to work.
My questions
How is the relationsships between the files?
I can see an override of UpdateFieldValueInItem() which is setting the value to the selected item of a dropdown list. But this method is never called (when debugging). How can this be?

Some general advice would be to post this question to the SharePoint Stack Exchange site (if this answer is unsatisfactory), since there are a lot more SharePoint developers there.
From what I understand of that example, it seems to be quite a complex Custom Field Type to start with (given that it has multiple values). There's a good straightforward and pretty well explained tutorial on MSDN that you might want to try out: Walkthrough: Creating a Custom Field Type
Here's a brief explanation of your files (and the classes they contain):
This is the main class of your field, which derives from the SharePoint field base class (SPField). Your naming seems to indicate you're creating a lookup derivative; if so, you may wish to derived from SPFieldLookup.
This is the class the creates the form control displayed on a list item's New, Edit, and Display forms (but not the List View). It's a go-between for the forms and the item's value for this field.
&
This is the section displayed on the Add/Edit Column page. I would expect 3. to have the ending '.ascx.cs' instead of '.cs', since it is the code-behind for 4.; which may be the cause of your problem. This control sets up your field; associating the class in 1. to the list.
This is the field declaration. It says to SharePoint "Hey, I've created my own field; go look here to find it.", and directs SharePoint to the class in 1., which makes the field available on the Add Column page.

Trying to separate logic from controller in an MVC Entity Framework app - What is happening here?

Based on my last question, I have tried to separate the business logic from my controller completely.
This however has left a problem which I understand why, but not how to fix.... And, I do not understand why it is doing what is doing.
In my controller, I had the following:
public User GetCurrentUser()
{
User user = db.Users.SingleOrDefault(x => x.UserName == User.Identity.Name);
return user;
}
I now know about [NonAction] which fixes the security concern - however, I know this doesn't follow best practices of not having any non controller stuff in a controller. For this reason, I moved to a new class and modified it to the following:
public User GetCurrentUser(string name)
{
User user = db.Users.SingleOrDefault(x => x.UserName == name);
return user;
}
I have an edit method which before simply set various fields in the user object, then called db.SaveChanges(). This however is now causing issues - I believe it is due to calling the command on a db object that doesn't actually have the object loaded.
But, the part that I really do not understand is when I am redirected back to the home page and perform GetCurrentUser() again, I am presented with the edited details I changed... These are not stored in the database and it is only when I restart the application it goes back to the database results.
I am finding this very confusing! What is happening here and where are the object being stored?
And, how do I fix it? I have tried making the new Class's db function public and calling it's SaveChanges() method, but, this is resulting in the same problem - data that is not being saved to the database.
Anyway, quite frankly, I really liked calling it via just GetCurrentUser(), I wanted this due to the fact I wanted to change the way the user was loaded in the future - but, now that I have to call it via GetCurrentUser(User.Identity.Name), and make other modifications, I think it wouldn't be that much harder to just skip on the method and call the Lambda query directly instead... It just seems it will save a lot of trouble.

Based on the detail in your question, you need to make sure you attaching your Entity object e.g db.Users.Attach(updatedUser)
And then change its state
e.g db.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(updatedUser, EntityState.Modified)
Before you call db.SaveChanges()

The edit functions I've written for my MVC app usually have one more line of code before I call SaveChanges:
_db.ApplyCurrentValues(OriginalEntity.EntityKey.EntitySetName, NewEntity);
_db.SaveChanges();
Also, maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't this (below) be a simpler way to update the user information in the database?
Membership.UpdateUser();
As for the reason why the non-database data is still showing up for you, I think that is because when you call GetCurrentUser it caches information on the client side. I'm sure someone with more experience here can give a more detailed (or more correct answer) on that part.

Dynamic form with no real OOP or objects?

I am tacking a large refactor of a project, and I had asked this question to confirm/understand the direction I should go in and I think I got the answer that I wanted, which is not to throw away years worth of code. So, now begins the challenge of refactoring the code. I've been reading Martine Fowler and Martin Feathers' books, and they have a lot of insight, but I am looking for advice on the ultimate goal of where I want the application to be.
So to reiterate the application a little bit, its a dynamic forms system, with lots of validation logic and data logic between the fields. The main record that gets inserted is the set of form fields that is on the page. Another part of it is 'Actions' that you can do for a person. These 'Actions' can differ client by client, and there are hundreds of 'Actions'. There is also talk that we can somehow make an engine that can eventually take on other similar areas, where a 'person' can be something else (such as student, or employee). So I want to build something very de-coupled. We have one codebase, but different DBs for different clients. The set of form fields on the page are dynamic, but the DB is not - it is translated into the specific DB table via stored procs. So, the generic set of fields are sent to the stored proc and the stored proc then decides what to do with the fields (figure out which table it needs to go to). These tables in fact are pretty static, meaning that they are not really dynamic, and there is a certain structure to it.
What I'm struggling specifically is how to setup a good way to do the dynamic form control page. It seems majority of the logic will be in code on the UI/aspx.cs page, because its loading controls onto the webpage. Is there some way I can do this, so it is done in a streamlined fashion, so the aspx.cs page isn't 5000 lines long? I have a 'FORM' object, and one of the properties is its' 'FIELDS'. So this object is loaded up in the business layer and the Data layer, but now on the fron end, it has to loop through the FIELDS and output the controls onto the page. Also, someway to be able to control the placement would be useful, too - not sure how do get that into this model....
Also, from another point of view - how can I 'really' get this into an object-oriented-structure? Because technically, they can create forms of anything. And those form fields can represent any object. So, for example, today they can create a set of form fields, that represent a 'person' - tomorrow they can create a set of form fields that represent a 'furniture'. How can I possibly translate this to to a person or a furniture object (or should I even be trying to?). And I don't really have controls over the form fields, because they can create whatever....
Any thought process would be really helpful - thanks!

How can I possibly translate this to to a person or a furniture object
(or should I even be trying to?)
If I understand you correctly, you probably shouldn't try to convert these fields to specific objects since the nature of your application is so dynamic. If the stored procedures are capable of figuring out which combination of fields belongs to which tables, then great.
If you can change the DB schema, I would suggest coming up with something much more dynamic. Rather than have a single table for each type of dynamic object, I would create the following schema:
Object {
ID
Name
... (clientID, etc.) ...
}
Property {
ID
ObjectID
Name
DBType (int, string, object-id, etc.)
FormType ( textbox, checkbox, etc.)
[FormValidationRegex] <== optional, could be used by field controls
Value
}
If you can't change the database schema, you can still apply the following to the old system using the stored procedures and fixed tables:
Then when you read in a specific object from the database, you can loop through each of the properties and get the form type and simple add the appropriate generic form type to the page:
foreach(Property p in Object.Properties)
{
switch(p.FormType)
{
case FormType.CheckBox:
PageForm.AddField(new CheckboxFormField(p.Name, p.Value));
break;
case FormType.Email:
PageForm.AddField(new EmailFormField(p.Name, p.Value));
break;
case FormType.etc:
...
break;
}
}
Of course, I threw in a PageForm object, as well as CheckboxFormField and EmailFormField objects. The PageForm object could simply be a placeholder, and the CheckboxFormField and EmailFormField could be UserControls or ServerControls.
I would not recommend trying to control placement. Just list off each field one by one vertically. This is becoming more and more popular anyway, even with static forms who's layout can be controlled completely. Most signup forms, for example, follow this convention.
I hope that helps. If I understood your question wrong, or if you'd like further explanations, let me know.

Not sure I understand the question. But there's two toolboxes suitable for writing generic code. It's generics, and it's reflection - typically in combination.
I don't think I really understand what you're trying to do, but a method using relfection to identify all the properties of an object might look like this:
using System.Reflection;
(...)
public void VisitProperties(object subject)
{
Type subjectType = subject.GetType();
foreach (PropertyInfo info in subjectType.GetProperties()
{
object value = info.GetValue(subject, null);
Console.WriteLine("The name of the property is " + info.Name);
Console.WriteLine("The value is " + value.ToString());
}
}
You can also check out an entry on my blog where I discuss using attributes on objects in conjunction with reflection. It's actually discussing how this can be utilized to write generic UI. Not exactly what you want, but at least the same principles could be used.
http://codepatrol.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/129/
This means that you could create your own custom attributes, or use those that already exists within the .NET framework already, to describe your types. Attributes to specify rules for validation, field label, even field placement could be used.
public class Person
{
[FieldLabel("First name")]
[ValidationRules(Rules.NotEmpty | Rules.OnlyCharacters)]
[FormColumn(1)]
[FormRow(1)]
public string FirstName{get;set;}
[FieldLabel("Last name")]
[ValidationRules(Rules.NotEmpty | Rules.OnlyCharacters)]
[FormColumn(2)]
[FormRow(1)]
public string LastName{get;set;}
}
Then you'd use the method described in my blog to identify these attributes and take the apropriate action - e.g. placing them in the proper row, giving the correct label, and so forth. I won't propose how to solve these things, but at least reflection is a great and simple tool to get descriptive information about an unknown type.

I found xml invaluable for this same situation. You can build an object graph in your code to represent the form easily enough. This object graph can again be loaded/saved from a db easily.
You can turn your object graph into xml & use xslt to generate the html for display. You now also have the benefit of customising this transform for differnetn clients/versions/etc. I also store the xml in the database for performance & to give me a publish function.
You need some specific code to deal with the incoming data, as you're going to be accessing the raw request post. You need to validate the incoming data against what you think you was shown. That stops people spoofing/meddling with your forms.
I hope that all makes sense.