Search Results

Search found 42 results on 2 pages for 'modelbinder'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • MVC2 Modelbinder for List of derived objects

    - by user250773
    I want a list of different (derived) object types working with the Default Modelbinder in Asp.net MVC 2. I have the following ViewModel: public class ItemFormModel { [Required(ErrorMessage = "Required Field")] public string Name { get; set; } public string Description { get; set; } [ScaffoldColumn(true)] //public List<Core.Object> Objects { get; set; } public ArrayList Objects { get; set; } } And the list contains objects of diffent derived types, e.g. public class TextObject : Core.Object { public string Text { get; set; } } public class BoolObject : Core.Object { public bool Value { get; set; } } It doesn't matter if I use the List or the ArrayList implementation, everything get's nicely scaffolded in the form, but the modelbinder doesn't resolve the derived object type properties for me when posting back to the ActionResult. What could be a good solution for the Viewmodel structure to get a list of different object types handled? Having an extra list for every object type (e.g. List, List etc.) seems to be not a good solution for me, since this is a lot of overhead both in building the viewmodel and mapping it back to the domain model. Thinking about the other approach of binding all properties in a custom model binder, how can I make use the data annotations approach here (validating required attributes etc.) without a lot of overhead?

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net MVC elegant UI and ModelBinder authorization

    - by SDReyes
    We know authorization stuff is a cross cutting concern, and we do anything we could to avoid merge business logic in our views. But I still not found an elegant way to filter UI components (e.g. widgets, form elements, tables, etc) using the current user roles without contaminate the view with business logic. same applies for model binding. Example Form: Product Creation Fields: Name Price Discount Roles: Role Administrator Is allowed to see and modify the Name field Is allowed to see and modify the Price field Is allowed to see and modify the Discount Role Administrator assistant Is allowed to see and modify the Name Is allowed to see and modify the Price Fields shown in each role are different, and model binding needs to ignore the discount field for 'Administrator assistant' role. How would you do it?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2: Linq to SQL entity w/ ForeignKey relationship and Default ModelBinder strangeness

    - by Simon
    Once again I'm having trouble with Linq to Sql and the MVC Model Binder. I have Linq to Sql generated classes, to illustrate them they look similar to this: public class Client { public int ClientID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class Site { public int SiteID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class User { public int UserID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public int? ClientID { get; set; } public EntityRef<Client> Client { get; set; } public int? SiteID { get; set; } public EntityRef<Site> Site { get; set; } } The 'User' has a relationship with the 'Client' and 'Site . The User class has nullable ClientIDs and SiteIDs because the admin users are not bound to a Client or Site. Now I have a view where a user can edit a 'User' object, the view has fields for all the 'User' properties. When the form is submitted, the appropiate 'Save' action is called in my UserController: public ActionResult Save(User user, FormCollection form) { //form['SiteID'] == 1 //user.SiteID == 1 //form['ClientID'] == 1 //user.ClientID == null } The problem here is that the ClientID is never set, it is always null, even though the value is in the FormCollection. To figure out whats going wrong I set breakpoints for the ClientID and SiteID getters and setters in the Linq to Sql designer generated classes. I noticed the following: SiteID is being set, then ClientID is being set, but then the Client EntityRef property is being set with a null value which in turn is setting the ClientID to null too! I don't know why and what is trying to set the Client property, because the Site property setter is never beeing called, only the Client setter is being called. Manually setting the ClientID from the FormCollection like this: user.ClientID = int.Parse(form["ClientID"].ToString()); throws a 'ForeignKeyReferenceAlreadyHasValueException', because it was already set to null before. The only workaround I have found is to extend the generated partial User class with a custom method: Client = default(EntityRef<Client>) but this is not a satisfying solution. I don't think it should work like this? Please enlighten me someone. So far Linq to Sql is driving me crazy! Best regards

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC - Custom object instantiation / providing with the Modelbinder?

    - by ropstah
    Is it possible to customize the object initiation / providing with the default ASP.NET MVC Modelbinder? <AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)> _ Function EditObject(id As int, <Bind(Exclude:="Id")> obj As BLL.Object) As ActionResult End Function I would like to 'provide' obj to the modelbinder. (i don't want the Modelbinder to use New() and instantiate obj, but I want to deliver the object from a custom repository.) Is this possible? Edit: The loading from the repository should be done based on the id parameter of EditObject...

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC2 - Resolve Parameter Attribute in Model Binder

    - by Nathan Taylor
    Given an action like: public ActionResult DoStuff([CustomAttribute("foo")]string value) { // ... } Is there any way to resolve the instance of value's CustomAttribute within a ModelBinder? I was looking at the MVC sources and chances are I'm just doing it wrong, but when I tried to replicate their code which retrieves the BindAttribute for a complex model, calling GetAttributes() did not return the attribute I am looking for. DefaultModelBinder GetTypeDescriptor(controllerContext, bindingContext).GetAttributes();

    Read the article

  • ASP.MVC 1.0 complex ViewModel not populating on Action

    - by Graham
    Hi, I'm 3 days into learning MVC for a new project and i've managed to stumble my way over the multitude of issues I've come across - mainly about something as simple as moving data to a view and back into the controller in a type-safe (and manageable) manner. This is the latest. I've seen this reported before but nothing advised has seemed to work. I have a complex view model: public class IndexViewModel : ApplicationViewModel { public SearchFragment Search { get; private set; } public IndexViewModel() { this.Search = new SearchFragment(); } } public class SearchFragment { public string ItemId { get; set; } public string Identifier { get; set; } } This maps to (the main Index page): %@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<IndexViewModel>" %> <asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server"> <% Html.BeginForm("Search", AvailableControllers.Search, FormMethod.Post); %> <div id="search"> <% Html.RenderPartial("SearchControl", Model.Search); %> </div> <% Html.EndForm(); %> </asp:Content> and a UserControl: <%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<SearchFragment>" %> <p> <label for="itemId"> <%= Html.Resource("ItemId") %></label> <%= Html.TextBox("itemId", Model.ItemId)%> </p> <p> <label for="title"> <%= Html.Resource("Title") %></label> <%= Html.TextBox("identifier", Model.Identifier)%> </p> <p> <input type="submit" value="<%= Html.Resource("Search") %>" name="search" /> </p> This is returned to the following method: [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Search(IndexViewModel viewModel) { .... } My problem is that when the view model is rehydrated from the View into the ViewModel, the SearchFragment elements are null. I suspect this is because the default model binder doesn't realise the HTML ItemId and Identifier elements rendered inline in the View map to the SearchFragment class. When I have two extra properties (ItemId and Identifier) in the IndexViewModel, the values are bound correctly. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, I must use the SearchFragment as I need this to strongly type the Search UserControl... as the control can be used anywhere it can operate under any parent view. I really don't want to make it use "magic strings". There's too much of that going on already IMO. I've tried prefixing the HTML with "Search." in the hope that the model binder would recognise "Search.ItemId" and match to the IndexViewModel "Search" property and the ItemId within it, but this doesn't work. I fear I'm going to have to write my own ModelBinder to do this, but surely this must be something you can do out-of-the-box?? Failing that is there any other suggestions (or link to someone who has already done this?) Here's hoping....

    Read the article

  • Model Binding, a simple, simple question

    - by Paul Hatcherian
    I have a struct which works much like the System.Nullable type: public struct SpecialProperty<T> { public static implicit operator T(SpecialProperty<T> value) { return value.Value; } public static implicit operator SpecialProperty<T>(T value) { return new TrackChanges<T> { Value = value }; } T internalValue; public T Value { get { return internalValue; } set { internalValue = value; } } public override bool Equals(object other) { return Value.Equals(other); } public override int GetHashCode() { return Value.GetHashCode(); } public override string ToString() { return Value.ToString(); } } I'm trying to use it with ASP.NET MVC binding. Using the default customer model binder the property will always yield null. I can fix this by adding ".Value" to the end of every form input name, but I just want it to bind to the new type directly using some sort of custom model binder, but all the solutions I've tried seemed needlessly complex. I feel like I should be able to extend the default binder and with a few lines of code redirect the property binding to the entire model using implicit conversion. I don't quite get the binding paradigm of the default binder, but it seems really stuck on this distinction between the model and model properties. What is the simplest method to do this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Getting the Action during model binding

    - by Kieron
    Hi, Is there a way of getting the Action, and reading any attributes, during the model binding phase? The scenario is this: I've got a default model binder set-up for a certain data-type, but depending on how it's being used (which is controlled via an attribute on the action) I need to ignore a set of data. I can use the RouteData on the controller context and see the action name, which I can use to go get the data, but wondered if that information is already available. Additionally, if the action in question is an asynchronous one, they'd be more processing involved in looking it up...

    Read the article

  • Custom DateTime model binder in Asp.net MVC

    - by Robert Koritnik
    I would like to write my own model binder for DateTime type. First of all I'd like to write a new attribute that I can attach to my model property like: [DateTimeFormat("d.M.yyyy")] public DateTime Birth { get; set,} This is the easy part. But the binder part is a bit more difficult. I would like to add a new model binder for type DateTime. I can either implement IModelBinder interface and write my own BindModel() method inherit from DefaultModelBinder and override BindModel() method My model has a property as seen above (Birth). So when the model tries to bind request data to this property, my model binder's BindModel(controllerContext, bindingContext) gets invoked. Everything ok, but. How do I get property attributes from controller/bindingContext, to parse my date correctly? How can I get to the PropertyDesciptor of property Birth? Edit Because of separation of concerns my model class is defined in an assembly that doesn't (and shouldn't) reference System.Web.MVC assembly. Setting custom binding (similar to Scott Hanselman's example) attributes is a no-go here.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC routing issue with Google Chrome client

    - by synergetic
    My Silverlight 4 app is hosted in ASP.NET MVC 2 web application. It works fine when I browse with Internet Explorer 8. However Google Chrome (version 5) cannot find ASP.NET controllers. Specifically, the following ASP.NET controller works both with Chrome and IE. //[OutputCache(NoStore = true, Duration = 0, VaryByParam = "None")] public ContentResult TestMe() { ContentResult result = new ContentResult(); XElement response = new XElement("SvrResponse", new XElement("Data", "my data")); result.Content = response.ToString(); return result; } If I uncomment [OutputCache] attribute then it works with IE but not with Chrome. Also, I use custom model binding with controllers, so if I write the following: public ContentResult TestMe(UserContext userContext) { ... } it also works with IE, but again not with Chrome which gives me error message saying that resource was not found. Of course, I configured IIS 6 for handling all requests via aspnet_isapi.dll and I have registered custom model binder in my web app's Global.asax inside Application_Start() method. Can someone explain me what might be the cause? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • .NET-MVC Modelbinder not binding because of primary key, all other fields are right. What's happenin

    - by ropstah
    I want to perform an Add object scenario in .NET using the modelbinder. Function AddObject() As ActionResult Return View() End Function <AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)> _ Function AddObject(<Bind(Exclude:="ObjectId")> ByVal o As BLL.Object) As ActionResult o.Save() End Function However, I get an error: 'o.ObjectId' is not declared or the module containing it is not loaded in the debugging session. While inspecting the object, all other fields are set properly. I've tried all combinations regarding: with/without Html.Hidden("ObjectId") to with/without <Bind(Exclude:="ObjectId")> and even setting o.ObjectId to Nothing, all with the same results. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • ServiceLocator has not been initialized; I was trying to retrieve SharpArch.Core.CommonValidator.IVa

    - by Chinmaya
    Server Error in '/' Application. ServiceLocator has not been initialized; I was trying to retrieve SharpArch.Core.CommonValidator.IValidator Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code. Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: ServiceLocator has not been initialized; I was trying to retrieve SharpArch.Core.CommonValidator.IValidator Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. Stack Trace: [NullReferenceException: ServiceLocator has not been initialized; I was trying to retrieve SharpArch.Core.CommonValidator.IValidator] SharpArch.Core.SafeServiceLocator`1.GetService() in C:\MyStuff\Projects\SharpArchGitHub\src\SharpArch\SharpArch.Core\SafeServiceLocator.cs:20 SharpArch.Core.DomainModel.ValidatableObject.get_Validator() in C:\MyStuff\Projects\SharpArchGitHub\src\SharpArch\SharpArch.Core\DomainModel\ValidatableObject.cs:20 SharpArch.Core.DomainModel.ValidatableObject.ValidationResults() in C:\MyStuff\Projects\SharpArchGitHub\src\SharpArch\SharpArch.Core\DomainModel\ValidatableObject.cs:15 SharpArch.Web.ModelBinder.SharpModelBinder.OnModelUpdated(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) in C:\MyStuff\Projects\SharpArchGitHub\src\SharpArch\SharpArch.Web\ModelBinder\SharpModelBinder.cs:40 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindComplexElementalModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Object model) +304 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindComplexModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) +772 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) +345 SharpArch.Web.ModelBinder.SharpModelBinder.BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) in C:\MyStuff\Projects\SharpArchGitHub\src\SharpArch\SharpArch.Web\ModelBinder\SharpModelBinder.cs:241 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.GetParameterValue(ControllerContext controllerContext, ParameterDescriptor parameterDescriptor) +219 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.GetParameterValues(ControllerContext controllerContext, ActionDescriptor actionDescriptor) +109 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeAction(ControllerContext controllerContext, String actionName) +399 System.Web.Mvc.Controller.ExecuteCore() +126 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.Execute(RequestContext requestContext) +27 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.System.Web.Mvc.IController.Execute(RequestContext requestContext) +7 System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContextBase httpContext) +151 System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext httpContext) +57 System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.System.Web.IHttpHandler.ProcessRequest(HttpContext httpContext) +7 System.Web.CallHandlerExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute() +181 System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously) +75

    Read the article

  • DropDownList and SelectListItem Array Item Updates in MVC

    - by Rick Strahl
    So I ran into an interesting behavior today as I deployed my first MVC 4 app tonight. I have a list form that has a filter drop down that allows selection of categories. This list is static and rarely changes so rather than loading these items from the database each time I load the items once and then cache the actual SelectListItem[] array in a static property. However, when we put the site online tonight we immediately noticed that the drop down list was coming up with pre-set values that randomly changed. Didn't take me long to trace this back to the cached list of SelectListItem[]. Clearly the list was getting updated - apparently through the model binding process in the selection postback. To clarify the scenario here's the drop down list definition in the Razor View:@Html.DropDownListFor(mod => mod.QueryParameters.Category, Model.CategoryList, "All Categories") where Model.CategoryList gets set with:[HttpPost] [CompressContent] public ActionResult List(MessageListViewModel model) { InitializeViewModel(model); busEntry entryBus = new busEntry(); var entries = entryBus.GetEntryList(model.QueryParameters); model.Entries = entries; model.DisplayMode = ApplicationDisplayModes.Standard; model.CategoryList = AppUtils.GetCachedCategoryList(); return View(model); } The AppUtils.GetCachedCategoryList() method gets the cached list or loads the list on the first access. The code to load up the list is housed in a Web utility class. The method looks like this:/// <summary> /// Returns a static category list that is cached /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> public static SelectListItem[] GetCachedCategoryList() { if (_CategoryList != null) return _CategoryList; lock (_SyncLock) { if (_CategoryList != null) return _CategoryList; var catBus = new busCategory(); var categories = catBus.GetCategories().ToList(); // Turn list into a SelectItem list var catList= categories .Select(cat => new SelectListItem() { Text = cat.Name, Value = cat.Id.ToString() }) .ToList(); catList.Insert(0, new SelectListItem() { Value = ((int)SpecialCategories.AllCategoriesButRealEstate).ToString(), Text = "All Categories except Real Estate" }); catList.Insert(1, new SelectListItem() { Value = "-1", Text = "--------------------------------" }); _CategoryList = catList.ToArray(); } return _CategoryList; } private static SelectListItem[] _CategoryList ; This seemed normal enough to me - I've been doing stuff like this forever caching smallish lists in memory to avoid an extra trip to the database. This list is used in various places throughout the application - for the list display and also when adding new items and setting up for notifications etc.. Watch that ModelBinder! However, it turns out that this code is clearly causing a problem. It appears that the model binder on the [HttpPost] method is actually updating the list that's bound to and changing the actual entry item in the list and setting its selected value. If you look at the code above I'm not setting the SelectListItem.Selected value anywhere - the only place this value can get set is through ModelBinding. Sure enough when stepping through the code I see that when an item is selected the actual model - model.CategoryList[x].Selected - reflects that. This is bad on several levels: First it's obviously affecting the application behavior - nobody wants to see their drop down list values jump all over the place randomly. But it's also a problem because the array is getting updated by multiple ASP.NET threads which likely would lead to odd crashes from time to time. Not good! In retrospect the modelbinding behavior makes perfect sense. The actual items and the Selected property is the ModelBinder's way of keeping track of one or more selected values. So while I assumed the list to be read-only, the ModelBinder is actually updating it on a post back producing the rather surprising results. Totally missed this during testing and is another one of those little - "Did you know?" moments. So, is there a way around this? Yes but it's maybe not quite obvious. I can't change the behavior of the ModelBinder, but I can certainly change the way that the list is generated. Rather than returning the cached list, I can return a brand new cloned list from the cached items like this:/// <summary> /// Returns a static category list that is cached /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> public static SelectListItem[] GetCachedCategoryList() { if (_CategoryList != null) { // Have to create new instances via projection // to avoid ModelBinding updates to affect this // globally return _CategoryList .Select(cat => new SelectListItem() { Value = cat.Value, Text = cat.Text }) .ToArray(); } …}  The key is that newly created instances of SelectListItems are returned not just filtered instances of the original list. The key here is 'new instances' so that the ModelBinding updates do not update the actual static instance. The code above uses LINQ and a projection into new SelectListItem instances to create this array of fresh instances. And this code works correctly - no more cross-talk between users. Unfortunately this code is also less efficient - it has to reselect the items and uses extra memory for the new array. Knowing what I know now I probably would have not cached the list and just take the hit to read from the database. If there is even a possibility of thread clashes I'm very wary of creating code like this. But since the method already exists and handles this load in one place this fix was easy enough to put in. Live and learn. It's little things like this that can cause some interesting head scratchers sometimes…© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in MVC  ASP.NET  .NET   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Unity IoC and MVC modelbinding

    - by danielovich
    Is it ok to have a static field in my controller for my modelbinder to call ? Eg. public class AuctionItemsController : Controller { private IRepository<IAuctionItem> GenericAuctionItemRepository; private IAuctionItemRepository AuctionItemRepository; public AuctionItemsController(IRepository<IAuctionItem> genericAuctionItemRepository, IAuctionItemRepository auctionItemRepository) { GenericAuctionItemRepository = genericAuctionItemRepository; AuctionItemRepository = auctionItemRepository; StaticGenericAuctionItemRepository = genericAuctionItemRepository; } internal static IRepository<IAuctionItem> StaticGenericAuctionItemRepository; here is the modelbinder public class AuctionItemModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder { public override object BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) { if (AuctionItemsController.StaticGenericAuctionItemRepository != null) { AuctionLogger.LogException(new Exception("controller is null")); } NameValueCollection form = controllerContext.HttpContext.Request.Form; var item = AuctionItemsController.StaticGenericAuctionItemRepository.GetSingle(Convert.ToInt32(controllerContext.RouteData.Values["id"])); item.Description = form["title"]; item.Price = int.Parse(form["price"]); item.Title = form["title"]; item.CreatedDate = DateTime.Now; item.AuctionId = 1; //TODO: Stop hardcoding this item.UserId = 1; return item; }} i am using Unity as IoC and I find it weird to register my modelbinder in the IoC container. Any other good design considerations I shold do ?

    Read the article

  • Passing multiple POST parameters to Web API Controller Methods

    - by Rick Strahl
    ASP.NET Web API introduces a new API for creating REST APIs and making AJAX callbacks to the server. This new API provides a host of new great functionality that unifies many of the features of many of the various AJAX/REST APIs that Microsoft created before it - ASP.NET AJAX, WCF REST specifically - and combines them into a whole more consistent API. Web API addresses many of the concerns that developers had with these older APIs, namely that it was very difficult to build consistent REST style resource APIs easily. While Web API provides many new features and makes many scenarios much easier, a lot of the focus has been on making it easier to build REST compliant APIs that are focused on resource based solutions and HTTP verbs. But  RPC style calls that are common with AJAX callbacks in Web applications, have gotten a lot less focus and there are a few scenarios that are not that obvious, especially if you're expecting Web API to provide functionality similar to ASP.NET AJAX style AJAX callbacks. RPC vs. 'Proper' REST RPC style HTTP calls mimic calling a method with parameters and returning a result. Rather than mapping explicit server side resources or 'nouns' RPC calls tend simply map a server side operation, passing in parameters and receiving a typed result where parameters and result values are marshaled over HTTP. Typically RPC calls - like SOAP calls - tend to always be POST operations rather than following HTTP conventions and using the GET/POST/PUT/DELETE etc. verbs to implicitly determine what operation needs to be fired. RPC might not be considered 'cool' anymore, but for typical private AJAX backend operations of a Web site I'd wager that a large percentage of use cases of Web API will fall towards RPC style calls rather than 'proper' REST style APIs. Web applications that have needs for things like live validation against data, filling data based on user inputs, handling small UI updates often don't lend themselves very well to limited HTTP verb usage. It might not be what the cool kids do, but I don't see RPC calls getting replaced by proper REST APIs any time soon.  Proper REST has its place - for 'real' API scenarios that manage and publish/share resources, but for more transactional operations RPC seems a better choice and much easier to implement than trying to shoehorn a boatload of endpoint methods into a few HTTP verbs. In any case Web API does a good job of providing both RPC abstraction as well as the HTTP Verb/REST abstraction. RPC works well out of the box, but there are some differences especially if you're coming from ASP.NET AJAX service or WCF Rest when it comes to multiple parameters. Action Routing for RPC Style Calls If you've looked at Web API demos you've probably seen a bunch of examples of how to create HTTP Verb based routing endpoints. Verb based routing essentially maps a controller and then uses HTTP verbs to map the methods that are called in response to HTTP requests. This works great for resource APIs but doesn't work so well when you have many operational methods in a single controller. HTTP Verb routing is limited to the few HTTP verbs available (plus separate method signatures) and - worse than that - you can't easily extend the controller with custom routes or action routing beyond that. Thankfully Web API also supports Action based routing which allows you create RPC style endpoints fairly easily:RouteTable.Routes.MapHttpRoute( name: "AlbumRpcApiAction", routeTemplate: "albums/{action}/{title}", defaults: new { title = RouteParameter.Optional, controller = "AlbumApi", action = "GetAblums" } ); This uses traditional MVC style {action} method routing which is different from the HTTP verb based routing you might have read a bunch about in conjunction with Web API. Action based routing like above lets you specify an end point method in a Web API controller either via the {action} parameter in the route string or via a default value for custom routes. Using routing you can pass multiple parameters either on the route itself or pass parameters on the query string, via ModelBinding or content value binding. For most common scenarios this actually works very well. As long as you are passing either a single complex type via a POST operation, or multiple simple types via query string or POST buffer, there's no issue. But if you need to pass multiple parameters as was easily done with WCF REST or ASP.NET AJAX things are not so obvious. Web API has no issue allowing for single parameter like this:[HttpPost] public string PostAlbum(Album album) { return String.Format("{0} {1:d}", album.AlbumName, album.Entered); } There are actually two ways to call this endpoint: albums/PostAlbum Using the Model Binder with plain POST values In this mechanism you're sending plain urlencoded POST values to the server which the ModelBinder then maps the parameter. Each property value is matched to each matching POST value. This works similar to the way that MVC's  ModelBinder works. Here's how you can POST using the ModelBinder and jQuery:$.ajax( { url: "albums/PostAlbum", type: "POST", data: { AlbumName: "Dirty Deeds", Entered: "5/1/2012" }, success: function (result) { alert(result); }, error: function (xhr, status, p3, p4) { var err = "Error " + " " + status + " " + p3; if (xhr.responseText && xhr.responseText[0] == "{") err = JSON.parse(xhr.responseText).message; alert(err); } }); Here's what the POST data looks like for this request: The model binder and it's straight form based POST mechanism is great for posting data directly from HTML pages to model objects. It avoids having to do manual conversions for many operations and is a great boon for AJAX callback requests. Using Web API JSON Formatter The other option is to post data using a JSON string. The process for this is similar except that you create a JavaScript object and serialize it to JSON first.album = { AlbumName: "PowerAge", Entered: new Date(1977,0,1) } $.ajax( { url: "albums/PostAlbum", type: "POST", contentType: "application/json", data: JSON.stringify(album), success: function (result) { alert(result); } }); Here the data is sent using a JSON object rather than form data and the data is JSON encoded over the wire. The trace reveals that the data is sent using plain JSON (Source above), which is a little more efficient since there's no UrlEncoding that occurs. BTW, notice that WebAPI automatically deals with the date. I provided the date as a plain string, rather than a JavaScript date value and the Formatter and ModelBinder both automatically map the date propertly to the Entered DateTime property of the Album object. Passing multiple Parameters to a Web API Controller Single parameters work fine in either of these RPC scenarios and that's to be expected. ModelBinding always works against a single object because it maps a model. But what happens when you want to pass multiple parameters? Consider an API Controller method that has a signature like the following:[HttpPost] public string PostAlbum(Album album, string userToken) Here I'm asking to pass two objects to an RPC method. Is that possible? This used to be fairly straight forward either with WCF REST and ASP.NET AJAX ASMX services, but as far as I can tell this is not directly possible using a POST operation with WebAPI. There a few workarounds that you can use to make this work: Use both POST *and* QueryString Parameters in Conjunction If you have both complex and simple parameters, you can pass simple parameters on the query string. The above would actually work with: /album/PostAlbum?userToken=sekkritt but that's not always possible. In this example it might not be a good idea to pass a user token on the query string though. It also won't work if you need to pass multiple complex objects, since query string values do not support complex type mapping. They only work with simple types. Use a single Object that wraps the two Parameters If you go by service based architecture guidelines every service method should always pass and return a single value only. The input should wrap potentially multiple input parameters and the output should convey status as well as provide the result value. You typically have a xxxRequest and a xxxResponse class that wraps the inputs and outputs. Here's what this method might look like:public PostAlbumResponse PostAlbum(PostAlbumRequest request) { var album = request.Album; var userToken = request.UserToken; return new PostAlbumResponse() { IsSuccess = true, Result = String.Format("{0} {1:d} {2}", album.AlbumName, album.Entered,userToken) }; } with these support types:public class PostAlbumRequest { public Album Album { get; set; } public User User { get; set; } public string UserToken { get; set; } } public class PostAlbumResponse { public string Result { get; set; } public bool IsSuccess { get; set; } public string ErrorMessage { get; set; } }   To call this method you now have to assemble these objects on the client and send it up as JSON:var album = { AlbumName: "PowerAge", Entered: "1/1/1977" } var user = { Name: "Rick" } var userToken = "sekkritt"; $.ajax( { url: "samples/PostAlbum", type: "POST", contentType: "application/json", data: JSON.stringify({ Album: album, User: user, UserToken: userToken }), success: function (result) { alert(result.Result); } }); I assemble the individual types first and then combine them in the data: property of the $.ajax() call into the actual object passed to the server, that mimics the structure of PostAlbumRequest server class that has Album, User and UserToken properties. This works well enough but it gets tedious if you have to create Request and Response types for each method signature. If you have common parameters that are always passed (like you always pass an album or usertoken) you might be able to abstract this to use a single object that gets reused for all methods, but this gets confusing too: Overload a single 'parameter' too much and it becomes a nightmare to decipher what your method actual can use. Use JObject to parse multiple Property Values out of an Object If you recall, ASP.NET AJAX and WCF REST used a 'wrapper' object to make default AJAX calls. Rather than directly calling a service you always passed an object which contained properties for each parameter: { parm1: Value, parm2: Value2 } WCF REST/ASP.NET AJAX would then parse this top level property values and map them to the parameters of the endpoint method. This automatic type wrapping functionality is no longer available directly in Web API, but since Web API now uses JSON.NET for it's JSON serializer you can actually simulate that behavior with a little extra code. You can use the JObject class to receive a dynamic JSON result and then using the dynamic cast of JObject to walk through the child objects and even parse them into strongly typed objects. Here's how to do this on the API Controller end:[HttpPost] public string PostAlbum(JObject jsonData) { dynamic json = jsonData; JObject jalbum = json.Album; JObject juser = json.User; string token = json.UserToken; var album = jalbum.ToObject<Album>(); var user = juser.ToObject<User>(); return String.Format("{0} {1} {2}", album.AlbumName, user.Name, token); } This is clearly not as nice as having the parameters passed directly, but it works to allow you to pass multiple parameters and access them using Web API. JObject is JSON.NET's generic object container which sports a nice dynamic interface that allows you to walk through the object's properties using standard 'dot' object syntax. All you have to do is cast the object to dynamic to get access to the property interface of the JSON type. Additionally JObject also allows you to parse JObject instances into strongly typed objects, which enables us here to retrieve the two objects passed as parameters from this jquery code:var album = { AlbumName: "PowerAge", Entered: "1/1/1977" } var user = { Name: "Rick" } var userToken = "sekkritt"; $.ajax( { url: "samples/PostAlbum", type: "POST", contentType: "application/json", data: JSON.stringify({ Album: album, User: user, UserToken: userToken }), success: function (result) { alert(result); } }); Summary ASP.NET Web API brings many new features and many advantages over the older Microsoft AJAX and REST APIs, but realize that some things like passing multiple strongly typed object parameters will work a bit differently. It's not insurmountable, but just knowing what options are available to simulate this behavior is good to know. Now let me say here that it's probably not a good practice to pass a bunch of parameters to an API call. Ideally APIs should be closely factored to accept single parameters or a single content parameter at least along with some identifier parameters that can be passed on the querystring. But saying that doesn't mean that occasionally you don't run into a situation where you have the need to pass several objects to the server and all three of the options I mentioned might have merit in different situations. For now I'm sure the question of how to pass multiple parameters will come up quite a bit from people migrating WCF REST or ASP.NET AJAX code to Web API. At least there are options available to make it work.© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in Web Api   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Using Interfaces in action signature

    - by Dmitry Borovsky
    Hello, I want to use interface in Action signature. So I've tried make own ModelBinder by deriving DefaultModelBinder: public class InterfaceBinder<T> : DefaultModelBinder where T: new() { protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType) { return base.CreateModel(controllerContext, bindingContext, typeof(T)); } } public interface IFoo { string Data { get; set; } } public class Foo: IFoo /*other interfaces*/ { /* a lot of */ public string Data { get; set; } } public class MegaController: Controller { public ActionResult Process( [ModelBinder(typeof(InterfaceBinder))]IFoo foo){/bla-bla-bla/} } But it doesn't work. Does anybody have idea how release this behaviour? And yes, I know that I can make my own implementation of IModelBinder, but I'm looking for easier way.

    Read the article

  • Using Interfaces in an action signature of ASP.NET MVC controller

    - by Dmitry Borovsky
    Hello, I want to use interface in Action signature. So I've tried make own ModelBinder by deriving DefaultModelBinder: public class InterfaceBinder<T> : DefaultModelBinder where T: new() { protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType) { return base.CreateModel(controllerContext, bindingContext, typeof(T)); } } public interface IFoo { string Data { get; set; } } public class Foo: IFoo /*other interfaces*/ { /* a lot of other methods and properties*/ public Bar Data{get;set;} string IFoo.Data { get{return Data.ToString()}; set{Data = new Bar(value)}; } } public class MegaController: Controller { public ActionResult Process([ModelBinder(typeof(InterfaceBinder<Foo>))]IFoo foo){/*bla-bla-bla*/} } But it doesn't work. Does anybody have idea how release this behaviour? And yes, I know that I can make my own implementation of IModelBinder, but I'm looking for easier way.

    Read the article

  • Model Binding with Parent/Child Relationship

    - by user296297
    I'm sure this has been answered before, but I've spent the last three hours looking for an acceptable solution and have been unable to find anything, so I apologize for what I'm sure is a repeat. I have two domain objects, Player and Position. Player's have a Position. My domain objects are POCOs tied to my database with NHibernate. I have an Add action that takes a Player, so I'm using the built in model binding. On my view I have a drop down list that lets a user select the Position for the Player. The value of the drop down list is the Id of the position. Everything gets populated correctly except that my Position object fails validation (ModelState.IsValid) because at the point of model binding it only has an Id and none of it's other required attributes. What is the preferred solution for solving this with ASP.NET MVC 2? Solutions I've tried... Fetch the Position from the database based on the Id before ModelState.IsValid is called in the Add action of my controller. I can't get the model to run the validation again, so ModelState.IsValid always returns false. Create a custom ModelBinder that inherits from the default binder and fetch the Position from the database after the base binder is called. The ModelBinder seems to be doing the validation so if I use anything from the default binder I'm hosed. Which means I have to completely roll my own binder and grab every value from the form...this seems really wrong and inefficient for such a common use-case. Solutions I think might work, I just can't figure out how to do... Turn off the validation for the Position class when used in Player. Write a custom ModelBinder leverages the default binder for most of the property binding, but lets me get the Position from the database BEFORE the default binder runs validation. So, how do the rest of you solve this? Thanks, Dan P.S. In my opinion having a PositionId on Player just for this case is not a good solution. There has to be solvable in a more elegant fashion.

    Read the article

  • What are some useful things you can do with Mvc Modelbinders?

    - by George Mauer
    It occurs to me that the ModelBinder mechanism in ASP MVC public interface IModelBinder { object BindModel(System.Web.Mvc.ControllerContext controllerContext, System.Web.Mvc.ModelBindingContext bindingContext); } Is insanely powerful. What are some cool uses of this mechanism that you've done/seen? I guess since the concept is similar in other frameworks there's no reason to limit it to Asp Mvc

    Read the article

  • What do I need to do if I want all typeof(MyEnum)'s to be handled with MyEnumModelBinder?

    - by Byron Sommardahl
    I have an Enum that appears in several of my models. For the most part, the DefaultModelBinder handles binding to my models beautifully. That it, until it gets to my Enum... it always returns the first member in the Enum no matter what is handed it by the POST. My googling leads me to believe I need to have a model binder that knows how to handle Enums. I found an excellent article on a possible custom modelBinder for Enums: http://eliasbland.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/enumeration-model-binder-for-asp-net-mvc/. I've since implemented that modelBinder and registered it in my global.asax: ModelBinders.Binders[typeof (MyEnum)] = new EnumBinder<MyEnum>(MyEnum.MyDefault); For some reason, the EnumBinder< isn't being called when the model I'm binding to has MyEnum. I have a breakpoint in the .BindModel() method and it never break. Also, my model hasn't changed after modelBinding. Have I done everything? What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Custom BindAttribute

    - by Chao
    Is there a way to implement your own BindAttribute. Preferably by deriving from BindAttribute, but if you need to impliment it in your own ModelBinder how would you go about doing this?

    Read the article

  • Many to many self join through junction table

    - by Peter
    I have an EF model that can self-reference through an intermediary class to define a parent/child relationship. I know how to do a pure many-to-many relationship using the Map command, but for some reason going through this intermediary class is causing problems with my mappings. The intermediary class provides additional properties for the relationship. See the classes, modelBinder logic and error below: public class Equipment { [Key] public int EquipmentId { get; set; } public virtual List<ChildRecord> Parents { get; set; } public virtual List<ChildRecord> Children { get; set; } } public class ChildRecord { [Key] public int ChildId { get; set; } [Required] public int Quantity { get; set; } [Required] public Equipment Parent { get; set; } [Required] public Equipment Child { get; set; } } I've tried building the mappings in both directions, though I only keep one set in at a time: modelBuilder.Entity<ChildRecord>() .HasRequired(x => x.Parent) .WithMany(x => x.Children ) .WillCascadeOnDelete(false); modelBuilder.Entity<ChildRecord>() .HasRequired(x => x.Child) .WithMany(x => x.Parents) .WillCascadeOnDelete(false); OR modelBuilder.Entity<Equipment>() .HasMany(x => x.Parents) .WithRequired(x => x.Child) .WillCascadeOnDelete(false); modelBuilder.Entity<Equipment>() .HasMany(x => x.Children) .WithRequired(x => x.Parent) .WillCascadeOnDelete(false); Regardless of which set I use, I get the error: The foreign key component 'Child' is not a declared property on type 'ChildRecord'. Verify that it has not been explicitly excluded from the model and that it is a valid primitive property. when I try do deploy my ef model to the database. If I build it without the modelBinder logic in place then I get two ID columns for Child and two ID columns for Parent in my ChildRecord table. This makes sense since it tries to auto create the navigation properties from Equipment and doesn't know that there are already properties in ChildRecord to fulfill this need. I tried using Data Annotations on the class, and no modelBuilder code, this failed with the same error as above: [Required] [ForeignKey("EquipmentId")] public Equipment Parent { get; set; } [Required] [ForeignKey("EquipmentId")] public Equipment Child { get; set; } AND [InverseProperty("Child")] public virtual List<ChildRecord> Parents { get; set; } [InverseProperty("Parent")] public virtual List<ChildRecord> Children { get; set; } I've looked at various other answers around the internet/SO, and the common difference seems to be that I am self joining where as all the answers I can find are for two different types. Entity Framework Code First Many to Many Setup For Existing Tables Many to many relationship with junction table in Entity Framework? Creating many to many junction table in Entity Framework

    Read the article

  • Model Binding an IList of selected items only

    - by jeef3
    I have an action method setup: public ActionResult Delete(IList<Product> products) And a table of products in my view. I have got Model Binding working so that on submit I can populate the products list. But I would like to populate it with only the products that are selected via a checkbox. I think I could do it by changing the action method to this: public ActionResult Delete(IList<Product> products, IList<int> toDelete) And passing the list of check boxes to the toDelete but I would really like to avoid changing the method signature if possible. Is there a way to pass only the selected items? Or am I going to have to write a custom ModelBinder?

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >