Search Results

Search found 37403 results on 1497 pages for 'mvc view testing'.

Page 20/1497 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • ASP.NET MVC 2 InputExtensions different on server than local machine

    - by Mike
    Hi everyone, So this is kind of a crazy problem to me, but I've had no luck Googling it. I have an ASP.NET MVC 2 application (under .NET 4.0) running locally just fine. When I upload it to my production server (under shared hosting) I get Compiler Error Message: CS1061: 'System.Web.Mvc.HtmlHelper' does not contain a definition for 'TextBoxFor' and no extension method 'TextBoxFor' accepting a first argument of type 'System.Web.Mvc.HtmlHelper' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) for this code: <%= this.Html.TextBoxFor(person => person.LastName) %> This is one of the new standard extension methods in MVC 2. So I wrote some diagnostic code: System.Reflection.Assembly ass = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof(InputExtensions)); Response.Write("From GAC: " + ass.GlobalAssemblyCache.ToString() + "<br/>"); Response.Write("ImageRuntimeVersion: " + ass.ImageRuntimeVersion.ToString() + "<br/>"); Response.Write("Version: " + System.Diagnostics.FileVersionInfo.GetVersionInfo(ass.Location).ToString() + "<br/>"); foreach (var method in typeof(InputExtensions).GetMethods()) { Response.Write(method.Name + "<br/>"); } running locally (where it works fine), I get this as output: From GAC: True ImageRuntimeVersion: v2.0.50727 Version: File: C:\Windows\assembly\GAC_MSIL\System.Web.Mvc\2.0.0.0__31bf3856ad364e35\System.Web.Mvc.dll InternalName: System.Web.Mvc.dll OriginalFilename: System.Web.Mvc.dll FileVersion: 2.0.50217.0 FileDescription: System.Web.Mvc.dll Product: Microsoft® .NET Framework ProductVersion: 2.0.50217.0 Debug: False Patched: False PreRelease: False PrivateBuild: False SpecialBuild: False Language: Language Neutral CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBoxFor CheckBoxFor CheckBoxFor Hidden Hidden Hidden Hidden HiddenFor HiddenFor HiddenFor Password Password Password Password PasswordFor PasswordFor PasswordFor RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButtonFor RadioButtonFor RadioButtonFor TextBox TextBox TextBox TextBox TextBoxFor TextBoxFor TextBoxFor ToString Equals GetHashCode GetType and when running on the production server (where it fails), I see: From GAC: True ImageRuntimeVersion: v2.0.50727 Version: File: C:\Windows\assembly\GAC_MSIL\System.Web.Mvc\2.0.0.0__31bf3856ad364e35\System.Web.Mvc.dll InternalName: System.Web.Mvc.dll OriginalFilename: System.Web.Mvc.dll FileVersion: 2.0.41001.0 FileDescription: System.Web.Mvc.dll Product: Microsoft® .NET Framework ProductVersion: 2.0.41001.0 Debug: False Patched: False PreRelease: False PrivateBuild: False SpecialBuild: False Language: Language Neutral CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox CheckBox Hidden Hidden Hidden Hidden Hidden Hidden Password Password Password Password RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton RadioButton TextBox TextBox TextBox TextBox ToString Equals GetHashCode GetType note that "TextBoxFor" is not present (hence the error). I have MVC referenced in the csproj: <Reference Include="System.Web.Mvc, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35, processorArchitecture=MSIL"> <SpecificVersion>True</SpecificVersion> <HintPath>References\System.Web.Mvc.dll</HintPath> <Private>True</Private> </Reference> I just can't figure it what to do next. Thoughts? Thanks! -Mike

    Read the article

  • Yet Another ASP.NET MVC CRUD Tutorial

    - by Ricardo Peres
    I know that I have not posted much on MVC, mostly because I don’t use it on my daily life, but since I find it so interesting, and since it is gaining such popularity, I will be talking about it much more. This time, it’s about the most basic of scenarios: CRUD. Although there are several ASP.NET MVC tutorials out there that cover ordinary CRUD operations, I couldn’t find any that would explain how we can have also AJAX, optimistic concurrency control and validation, using Entity Framework Code First, so I set out to write one! I won’t go into explaining what is MVC, Code First or optimistic concurrency control, or AJAX, I assume you are all familiar with these concepts by now. Let’s consider an hypothetical use case, products. For simplicity, we only want to be able to either view a single product or edit this product. First, we need our model: 1: public class Product 2: { 3: public Product() 4: { 5: this.Details = new HashSet<OrderDetail>(); 6: } 7:  8: [Required] 9: [StringLength(50)] 10: public String Name 11: { 12: get; 13: set; 14: } 15:  16: [Key] 17: [ScaffoldColumn(false)] 18: [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] 19: public Int32 ProductId 20: { 21: get; 22: set; 23: } 24:  25: [Required] 26: [Range(1, 100)] 27: public Decimal Price 28: { 29: get; 30: set; 31: } 32:  33: public virtual ISet<OrderDetail> Details 34: { 35: get; 36: protected set; 37: } 38:  39: [Timestamp] 40: [ScaffoldColumn(false)] 41: public Byte[] RowVersion 42: { 43: get; 44: set; 45: } 46: } Keep in mind that this is a simple scenario. Let’s see what we have: A class Product, that maps to a product record on the database; A product has a required (RequiredAttribute) Name property which can contain up to 50 characters (StringLengthAttribute); The product’s Price must be a decimal value between 1 and 100 (RangeAttribute); It contains a set of order details, for each time that it has been ordered, which we will not talk about (Details); The record’s primary key (mapped to property ProductId) comes from a SQL Server IDENTITY column generated by the database (KeyAttribute, DatabaseGeneratedAttribute); The table uses a SQL Server ROWVERSION (previously known as TIMESTAMP) column for optimistic concurrency control mapped to property RowVersion (TimestampAttribute). Then we will need a controller for viewing product details, which will located on folder ~/Controllers under the name ProductController: 1: public class ProductController : Controller 2: { 3: [HttpGet] 4: public ViewResult Get(Int32 id = 0) 5: { 6: if (id != 0) 7: { 8: using (ProductContext ctx = new ProductContext()) 9: { 10: return (this.View("Single", ctx.Products.Find(id) ?? new Product())); 11: } 12: } 13: else 14: { 15: return (this.View("Single", new Product())); 16: } 17: } 18: } If the requested product does not exist, or one was not requested at all, one with default values will be returned. I am using a view named Single to display the product’s details, more on that later. As you can see, it delegates the loading of products to an Entity Framework context, which is defined as: 1: public class ProductContext: DbContext 2: { 3: public DbSet<Product> Products 4: { 5: get; 6: set; 7: } 8: } Like I said before, I’ll keep it simple for now, only aggregate root Product is available. The controller will use the standard routes defined by the Visual Studio ASP.NET MVC 3 template: 1: routes.MapRoute( 2: "Default", // Route name 3: "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters 4: new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } // Parameter defaults 5: ); Next, we need a view for displaying the product details, let’s call it Single, and have it located under ~/Views/Product: 1: <%@ Page Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Product>" %> 2: <!DOCTYPE html> 3:  4: <html> 5: <head runat="server"> 6: <title>Product</title> 7: <script src="/Scripts/jquery-1.7.2.js" type="text/javascript"></script> 1:  2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery-ui-1.8.19.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery.unobtrusive-ajax.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery.validate.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery.validate.unobtrusive.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script type="text/javascript"> 3: function onFailure(error) 4: { 5: } 6:  7: function onComplete(ctx) 8: { 9: } 10:  11: </script> 8: </head> 9: <body> 10: <div> 11: <% 1: : this.Html.ValidationSummary(false) %> 12: <% 1: using (this.Ajax.BeginForm("Edit", "Product", new AjaxOptions{ HttpMethod = FormMethod.Post.ToString(), OnSuccess = "onSuccess", OnFailure = "onFailure" })) { %> 13: <% 1: : this.Html.EditorForModel() %> 14: <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit" /> 15: <% 1: } %> 16: </div> 17: </body> 18: </html> Yes… I am using ASPX syntax… sorry about that!   I implemented an editor template for the Product class, which must be located on the ~/Views/Shared/EditorTemplates folder as file Product.ascx: 1: <%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<Product>" %> 2: <div> 3: <%: this.Html.HiddenFor(model => model.ProductId) %> 4: <%: this.Html.HiddenFor(model => model.RowVersion) %> 5: <fieldset> 6: <legend>Product</legend> 7: <div class="editor-label"> 8: <%: this.Html.LabelFor(model => model.Name) %> 9: </div> 10: <div class="editor-field"> 11: <%: this.Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Name) %> 12: <%: this.Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Name) %> 13: </div> 14: <div class="editor-label"> 15: <%= this.Html.LabelFor(model => model.Price) %> 16: </div> 17: <div class="editor-field"> 18: <%= this.Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Price) %> 19: <%: this.Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Price) %> 20: </div> 21: </fieldset> 22: </div> One thing you’ll notice is, I am including both the ProductId and the RowVersion properties as hidden fields; they will come handy later or, so that we know what product and version we are editing. The other thing is the included JavaScript files: jQuery, jQuery UI and unobtrusive validations. Also, I am not using the Content extension method for translating relative URLs, because that way I would lose JavaScript intellisense for jQuery functions. OK, so, at this moment, I want to add support for AJAX and optimistic concurrency control. So I write a controller method like this: 1: [HttpPost] 2: [AjaxOnly] 3: [Authorize] 4: public JsonResult Edit(Product product) 5: { 6: if (this.TryValidateModel(product) == true) 7: { 8: using (BlogContext ctx = new BlogContext()) 9: { 10: Boolean success = false; 11:  12: ctx.Entry(product).State = (product.ProductId == 0) ? EntityState.Added : EntityState.Modified; 13:  14: try 15: { 16: success = (ctx.SaveChanges() == 1); 17: } 18: catch (DbUpdateConcurrencyException) 19: { 20: ctx.Entry(product).Reload(); 21: } 22:  23: return (this.Json(new { Success = success, ProductId = product.ProductId, RowVersion = Convert.ToBase64String(product.RowVersion) })); 24: } 25: } 26: else 27: { 28: return (this.Json(new { Success = false, ProductId = 0, RowVersion = String.Empty })); 29: } 30: } So, this method is only valid for HTTP POST requests (HttpPost), coming from AJAX (AjaxOnly, from MVC Futures), and from authenticated users (Authorize). It returns a JSON object, which is what you would normally use for AJAX requests, containing three properties: Success: a boolean flag; RowVersion: the current version of the ROWVERSION column as a Base-64 string; ProductId: the inserted product id, as coming from the database. If the product is new, it will be inserted into the database, and its primary key will be returned into the ProductId property. Success will be set to true; If a DbUpdateConcurrencyException occurs, it means that the value in the RowVersion property does not match the current ROWVERSION column value on the database, so the record must have been modified between the time that the page was loaded and the time we attempted to save the product. In this case, the controller just gets the new value from the database and returns it in the JSON object; Success will be false. Otherwise, it will be updated, and Success, ProductId and RowVersion will all have their values set accordingly. So let’s see how we can react to these situations on the client side. Specifically, we want to deal with these situations: The user is not logged in when the update/create request is made, perhaps the cookie expired; The optimistic concurrency check failed; All went well. So, let’s change our view: 1: <%@ Page Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Product>" %> 2: <%@ Import Namespace="System.Web.Security" %> 3:  4: <!DOCTYPE html> 5:  6: <html> 7: <head runat="server"> 8: <title>Product</title> 9: <script src="/Scripts/jquery-1.7.2.js" type="text/javascript"></script> 1:  2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery-ui-1.8.19.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery.unobtrusive-ajax.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery.validate.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script src="/Scripts/jquery.validate.unobtrusive.js" type="text/javascript"> 1: </script> 2: <script type="text/javascript"> 3: function onFailure(error) 4: { 5: window.alert('An error occurred: ' + error); 6: } 7:  8: function onSuccess(ctx) 9: { 10: if (typeof (ctx.Success) != 'undefined') 11: { 12: $('input#ProductId').val(ctx.ProductId); 13: $('input#RowVersion').val(ctx.RowVersion); 14:  15: if (ctx.Success == false) 16: { 17: window.alert('An error occurred while updating the entity: it may have been modified by third parties. Please try again.'); 18: } 19: else 20: { 21: window.alert('Saved successfully'); 22: } 23: } 24: else 25: { 26: if (window.confirm('Not logged in. Login now?') == true) 27: { 28: document.location.href = '<%: FormsAuthentication.LoginUrl %>?ReturnURL=' + document.location.pathname; 29: } 30: } 31: } 32:  33: </script> 10: </head> 11: <body> 12: <div> 13: <% 1: : this.Html.ValidationSummary(false) %> 14: <% 1: using (this.Ajax.BeginForm("Edit", "Product", new AjaxOptions{ HttpMethod = FormMethod.Post.ToString(), OnSuccess = "onSuccess", OnFailure = "onFailure" })) { %> 15: <% 1: : this.Html.EditorForModel() %> 16: <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit" /> 17: <% 1: } %> 18: </div> 19: </body> 20: </html> The implementation of the onSuccess function first checks if the response contains a Success property, if not, the most likely cause is the request was redirected to the login page (using Forms Authentication), because it wasn’t authenticated, so we navigate there as well, keeping the reference to the current page. It then saves the current values of the ProductId and RowVersion properties to their respective hidden fields. They will be sent on each successive post and will be used in determining if the request is for adding a new product or to updating an existing one. The only thing missing is the ability to insert a new product, after inserting/editing an existing one, which can be easily achieved using this snippet: 1: <input type="button" value="New" onclick="$('input#ProductId').val('');$('input#RowVersion').val('');"/> And that’s it.

    Read the article

  • How to create a new WCF/MVC/jQuery application from scratch

    - by pjohnson
    As a corporate developer by trade, I don't get much opportunity to create from-the-ground-up web sites; usually it's tweaks, fixes, and new functionality to existing sites. And with hobby sites, I often don't find the challenges I run into with enterprise systems; usually it's starting from Visual Studio's boilerplate project and adding whatever functionality I want to play around with, rarely deploying outside my own machine. So my experience creating a new enterprise-level site was a bit dated, and the technologies to do so have come a long way, and are much more ready to go out of the box. My intention with this post isn't so much to provide any groundbreaking insights, but to just tie together a lot of information in one place to make it easy to create a new site from scratch. Architecture One site I created earlier this year had an MVC 3 front end and a WCF 4-driven service layer. Using Visual Studio 2010, these project types are easy enough to add to a new solution. I created a third Class Library project to store common functionality the front end and services layers both needed to access, for example, the DataContract classes that the front end uses to call services in the service layer. By keeping DataContract classes in a separate project, I avoided the need for the front end to have an assembly/project reference directly to the services code, a bit cleaner and more flexible of an SOA implementation. Consuming the service Even by this point, VS has given you a lot. You have a working web site and a working service, neither of which do much but are great starting points. To wire up the front end and the services, I needed to create proxy classes and WCF client configuration information. I decided to use the SvcUtil.exe utility provided as part of the Windows SDK, which you should have installed if you installed VS. VS also provides an Add Service Reference command since the .NET 1.x ASMX days, which I've never really liked; it creates several .cs/.disco/etc. files, some of which contained hardcoded URL's, adding duplicate files (*1.cs, *2.cs, etc.) without doing a good job of cleaning up after itself. I've found SvcUtil much cleaner, as it outputs one C# file (containing several proxy classes) and a config file with settings, and it's easier to use to regenerate the proxy classes when the service changes, and to then maintain all your configuration in one place (your Web.config, instead of the Service Reference files). I provided it a reference to a copy of my common assembly so it doesn't try to recreate the data contract classes, had it use the type List<T> for collections, and modified the output files' names and .NET namespace, ending up with a command like: svcutil.exe /l:cs /o:MyService.cs /config:MyService.config /r:MySite.Common.dll /ct:System.Collections.Generic.List`1 /n:*,MySite.Web.ServiceProxies http://localhost:59999/MyService.svc I took the generated MyService.cs file and drop it in the web project, under a ServiceProxies folder, matching the namespace and keeping it separate from classes I coded manually. Integrating the config file took a little more work, but only needed to be done once as these settings didn't often change. A great thing Microsoft improved with WCF 4 is configuration; namely, you can use all the default settings and not have to specify them explicitly in your config file. Unfortunately, SvcUtil doesn't generate its config file this way. If you just copy & paste MyService.config's contents into your front end's Web.config, you'll copy a lot of settings you don't need, plus this will get unwieldy if you add more services in the future, each with its own custom binding. Really, as the only mandatory settings are the endpoint's ABC's (address, binding, and contract) you can get away with just this: <system.serviceModel>  <client>    <endpoint address="http://localhost:59999/MyService.svc" binding="wsHttpBinding" contract="MySite.Web.ServiceProxies.IMyService" />  </client></system.serviceModel> By default, the services project uses basicHttpBinding. As you can see, I switched it to wsHttpBinding, a more modern standard. Using something like netTcpBinding would probably be faster and more efficient since the client & service are both written in .NET, but it requires additional server setup and open ports, whereas switching to wsHttpBinding is much simpler. From an MVC controller action method, I instantiated the client, and invoked the method for my operation. As with any object that implements IDisposable, I wrapped it in C#'s using() statement, a tidy construct that ensures Dispose gets called no matter what, even if an exception occurs. Unfortunately there are problems with that, as WCF's ClientBase<TChannel> class doesn't implement Dispose according to Microsoft's own usage guidelines. I took an approach similar to Technology Toolbox's fix, except using partial classes instead of a wrapper class to extend the SvcUtil-generated proxy, making the fix more seamless from the controller's perspective, and theoretically, less code I have to change if and when Microsoft fixes this behavior. User interface The MVC 3 project template includes jQuery and some other common JavaScript libraries by default. I updated the ones I used to the latest versions using NuGet, available in VS via the Tools > Library Package Manager > Manage NuGet Packages for Solution... > Updates. I also used this dialog to remove packages I wasn't using. Given that it's smart enough to know the difference between the .js and .min.js files, I was hoping it would be smart enough to know which to include during build and publish operations, but this doesn't seem to be the case. I ended up using Cassette to perform the minification and bundling of my JavaScript and CSS files; ASP.NET 4.5 includes this functionality out of the box. The web client to web server link via jQuery was easy enough. In my JavaScript function, unobtrusively wired up to a button's click event, I called $.ajax, corresponding to an action method that returns a JsonResult, accomplished by passing my model class to the Controller.Json() method, which jQuery helpfully translates from JSON to a JavaScript object.$.ajax calls weren't perfectly straightforward. I tried using the simpler $.post method instead, but ran into trouble without specifying the contentType parameter, which $.post doesn't have. The url parameter is simple enough, though for flexibility in how the site is deployed, I used MVC's Url.Action method to get the URL, then sent this to JavaScript in a JavaScript string variable. If the request needed input data, I used the JSON.stringify function to convert a JavaScript object with the parameters into a JSON string, which MVC then parses into strongly-typed C# parameters. I also specified "json" for dataType, and "application/json; charset=utf-8" for contentType. For success and error, I provided my success and error handling functions, though success is a bit hairier. "Success" in this context indicates whether the HTTP request succeeds, not whether what you wanted the AJAX call to do on the web server was successful. For example, if you make an AJAX call to retrieve a piece of data, the success handler will be invoked for any 200 OK response, and the error handler will be invoked for failed requests, e.g. a 404 Not Found (if the server rejected the URL you provided in the url parameter) or 500 Internal Server Error (e.g. if your C# code threw an exception that wasn't caught). If an exception was caught and handled, or if the data requested wasn't found, this would likely go through the success handler, which would need to do further examination to verify it did in fact get back the data for which it asked. I discuss this more in the next section. Logging and exception handling At this point, I had a working application. If I ran into any errors or unexpected behavior, debugging was easy enough, but of course that's not an option on public web servers. Microsoft Enterprise Library 5.0 filled this gap nicely, with its Logging and Exception Handling functionality. First I installed Enterprise Library; NuGet as outlined above is probably the best way to do so. I needed a total of three assembly references--Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling, Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling.Logging, and Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging. VS links with the handy Enterprise Library 5.0 Configuration Console, accessible by right-clicking your Web.config and choosing Edit Enterprise Library V5 Configuration. In this console, under Logging Settings, I set up a Rolling Flat File Trace Listener to write to log files but not let them get too large, using a Text Formatter with a simpler template than that provided by default. Logging to a different (or additional) destination is easy enough, but a flat file suited my needs. At this point, I verified it wrote as expected by calling the Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging.Logger.Write method from my C# code. With those settings verified, I went on to wire up Exception Handling with Logging. Back in the EntLib Configuration Console, under Exception Handling, I used a LoggingExceptionHandler, setting its Logging Category to the category I already had configured in the Logging Settings. Then, from code (e.g. a controller's OnException method, or any action method's catch block), I called the Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling.ExceptionPolicy.HandleException method, providing the exception and the exception policy name I had configured in the Exception Handling Settings. Before I got this configured correctly, when I tried it out, nothing was logged. In working with .NET, I'm used to seeing an exception if something doesn't work or isn't set up correctly, but instead working with these EntLib modules reminds me more of JavaScript (before the "use strict" v5 days)--it just does nothing and leaves you to figure out why, I presume due in part to the listener pattern Microsoft followed with the Enterprise Library. First, I verified logging worked on its own. Then, verifying/correcting where each piece wires up to the next resolved my problem. Your C# code calls into the Exception Handling module, referencing the policy you pass the HandleException method; that policy's configuration contains a LoggingExceptionHandler that references a logCategory; that logCategory should be added in the loggingConfiguration's categorySources section; that category references a listener; that listener should be added in the loggingConfiguration's listeners section, which specifies the name of the log file. One final note on error handling, as the proper way to handle WCF and MVC errors is a whole other very lengthy discussion. For AJAX calls to MVC action methods, depending on your configuration, an exception thrown here will result in ASP.NET'S Yellow Screen Of Death being sent back as a response, which is at best unnecessarily and uselessly verbose, and at worst a security risk as the internals of your application are exposed to potential hackers. I mitigated this by overriding my controller's OnException method, passing the exception off to the Exception Handling module as above. I created an ErrorModel class with as few properties as possible (e.g. an Error string), sending as little information to the client as possible, to both maximize bandwidth and mitigate risk. I then return an ErrorModel in JSON format for AJAX requests: if (filterContext.HttpContext.Request.IsAjaxRequest()){    filterContext.Result = Json(new ErrorModel(...));    filterContext.ExceptionHandled = true;} My $.ajax calls from the browser get a valid 200 OK response and go into the success handler. Before assuming everything is OK, I check if it's an ErrorModel or a model containing what I requested. If it's an ErrorModel, or null, I pass it to my error handler. If the client needs to handle different errors differently, ErrorModel can contain a flag, error code, string, etc. to differentiate, but again, sending as little information back as possible is ideal. Summary As any experienced ASP.NET developer knows, this is a far cry from where ASP.NET started when I began working with it 11 years ago. WCF services are far more powerful than ASMX ones, MVC is in many ways cleaner and certainly more unit test-friendly than Web Forms (if you don't consider the code/markup commingling you're doing again), the Enterprise Library makes error handling and logging almost entirely configuration-driven, AJAX makes a responsive UI more feasible, and jQuery makes JavaScript coding much less painful. It doesn't take much work to get a functional, maintainable, flexible application, though having it actually do something useful is a whole other matter.

    Read the article

  • override GetControllerInstance in asp.NET MVC 2

    - by loviji
    I have a code in asp.net MVC v.1: protected override IController GetControllerInstance(Type controllerType) { string connectionString = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["someEntities"].ConnectionString; return Activator.CreateInstance(controllerType, new DataManager(connectionString)) as IController; } now I use asp.net mvc v.2. And I know that, now GetController implemented as public virtual IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); How can return old functionality of upper code?

    Read the article

  • override GetControllerInstance in MVC

    - by loviji
    I have a code in asp.net MVC v.1: protected override IController GetControllerInstance(HttpContext null , Type controllerType) { string connectionString = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["someEntities"].ConnectionString; return Activator.CreateInstance(controllerType, new DataManager(connectionString)) as IController; } now I use asp.net mvc v.2. And I know that, now GetController implemented as public virtual IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); How can return old functionality of upper code?

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc url routing

    - by progtick
    How do I map something like domain.com/username? The problem is I think that the MVC routing looks for the controller to determine how it should handle the mapping request. I am pretty new to ASP.NET MVC. However, based on the tutorials so far, the routing mechanism seems rather rigid.

    Read the article

  • Is there any good ASP.Net MVC project with TDD & MOQ Source code available?

    - by melaos
    hi guys, i'm starting to learn TDD, Unit-testing on asp.net mvc and i'm trying to pickup all these mocking via MOQ. so i'm looking for any good asp.net mvc projects which source codes are made available to mere mortals like me :) i've found some good asp.net mvc source codes but not those that uses MOQ specifically. the asp.net mvc source code code camp server suteki shop So does anybody know any good open source asp.net mvc project which have good test/tdd examples using MOQ?

    Read the article

  • Asp.net mvc, entity framework, Poco - Architecture

    - by user1576228
    I have a "small" enterprise application, aspnet mvc 3 + entity framework with POCO entity and repository pattern. I structured the solution in 4 projects: POCO entities Domain model Services web application When the application performs a query on the database, use one of the services provided, the service uses the repository and the small classes, as a result I have some dynamic proxy objects that I would like to convert in my domain entities, before using them in mvc views, but I do not know how. Dovrebber be set as the translator? This approach is reasonable?

    Read the article

  • Moving MVC2 Helpers to MVC3 razor view engine

    - by Dai Bok
    Hi, In my MVC 2 site, I have an html helper, that I use to add javascripts for my pages. In my master page I have the main javascripts I want to include, and then in the aspx pages, I include page specific javascripts. So for example, my Site.Master has something like this: .... <head> <%=html.renderScripts() %> </head> ... //core scripts for main page <%html.AddScript("/scripts/jquery.js") %> <%html.AddScript("/scripts/myLib.js") %> .... Then in the child aspx page, I may also want to include other scripts. ... //the page specific script I want to use <% html.AddScript("/scripts/register.aspx.js") %> ... So when the full page gets rendered the javascript files are all collected and rendered in the head by sitemaster placeholder function RenderScripts. This works fine. Now with MVC 3 and razor view engine, they layout pages behave differently, because now my page level javascripts are not rendered/included. Now all I see the LayoutMaster contents. How do I get the solution wo workwith MVC 3 and the razor view engine. (The helper has already been re-written to return a HTMLString ;-)) For reference: my MasterLayout looks like this: ... ... <head> @{ Html.AddJavaScript("/Scripts/jQuery.js"); Html.AddJavaScript("/Scripts/myLib.js"); } //Render scripts @html.RenderScripts() </head> .... and the child page looks like this: @{ Layout = "~/Views/Shared/MasterLayout.cshtml"; ViewBag.Title = "Child Page"; Html.AddJavaScript("/Scripts/register.aspx.js"); } .... <div>some html </div> Thanks for your help. Edit = Just to explain, if this question is not clear enough. When producing a "page" I collect all the javascript files the designers want to use, by using the html.addJavascript("filename.js") and store these in a dictionary - (1) stops people adding duplicate js files - then finally when the page is ready to render, I write out all the javascript files neatly in the header. (2) - this helper helps keep JS in one place, and prevents designers from adding javascript files all over the place. This used to work fine with Master/SiteMaster Pages in mvc 2. but how can I achieve this with razor?

    Read the article

  • Cannot call action method 'System.Web.Mvc.PartialViewResult Foo[T](T)' on controller 'Controller' be

    - by MedicineMan
    Cannot call action method 'System.Web.Mvc.PartialViewResult FooT' on controller 'Controller' because the action method is a generic method <% Html.RenderAction("Foo", model = Model}); %> Is there a workaround for this limitation on ASP MVC 2? I would really prefer to use a generic. The workaround that I have come up with is to change the model type to be an object. It works, but is not preferred: public PartialViewResult Foo<T>(T model) where T : class { // do stuff }

    Read the article

  • ViewBag dynamic in ASP.NET MVC 3 - RC 2

    - by hajan
    Earlier today Scott Guthrie announced the ASP.NET MVC 3 - Release Candidate 2. I installed the new version right after the announcement since I was eager to see the new features. Among other cool features included in this release candidate, there is a new ViewBag dynamic which can be used to pass data from Controllers to Views same as you use ViewData[] dictionary. What is great and nice about ViewBag (despite the name) is that its a dynamic type which means you can dynamically get/set values and add any number of additional fields without need of strongly-typed classes. In order to see the difference, please take a look at the following examples. Example - Using ViewData Controller public ActionResult Index() {     List<string> colors = new List<string>();     colors.Add("red");     colors.Add("green");     colors.Add("blue");                 ViewData["listColors"] = colors;     ViewData["dateNow"] = DateTime.Now;     ViewData["name"] = "Hajan";     ViewData["age"] = 25;     return View(); } View (ASPX View Engine) <p>     My name is     <b><%: ViewData["name"] %></b>,     <b><%: ViewData["age"] %></b> years old.     <br />         I like the following colors: </p> <ul id="colors"> <% foreach (var color in ViewData["listColors"] as List<string>){ %>     <li>        <font color="<%: color %>"><%: color %></font>    </li> <% } %> </ul> <p>     <%: ViewData["dateNow"] %> </p> (I know the code might look cleaner with Razor View engine, but it doesn’t matter right? ;) ) Example - Using ViewBag Controller public ActionResult Index() {     List<string> colors = new List<string>();     colors.Add("red");     colors.Add("green");     colors.Add("blue");     ViewBag.ListColors = colors; //colors is List     ViewBag.DateNow = DateTime.Now;     ViewBag.Name = "Hajan";     ViewBag.Age = 25;     return View(); } You see the difference? View (ASPX View Engine) <p>     My name is     <b><%: ViewBag.Name %></b>,     <b><%: ViewBag.Age %></b> years old.     <br />         I like the following colors: </p> <ul id="colors"> <% foreach (var color in ViewBag.ListColors) { %>     <li>         <font color="<%: color %>"><%: color %></font>     </li> <% } %> </ul> <p>     <%: ViewBag.DateNow %> </p> In my example now I don’t need to cast ViewBag.ListColors as List<string> since ViewBag is dynamic type! On the other hand the ViewData[“key”] is object.I would like to note that if you use ViewData["ListColors"] = colors; in your Controller, you can retrieve it in the View by using ViewBag.ListColors. And the result in both cases is Hope you like it! Regards, Hajan

    Read the article

  • Do unit tests sometimes break encapsulation?

    - by user1288851
    I very often hear the following: "If you want to test private methods, you'd better put that in another class and expose it." While sometimes that's the case and we have a hiding concept inside our class, other times you end up with classes that have the same attributes (or, worst, every attribute of one class become a argument on a method in the other class) and exposes functionality that is, in fact, implementation detail. Specially on TDD, when you refactor a class with public methods out of a previous tested class, that class is now part of your interface, but has no tests to it (since you refactored it, and is a implementation detail). Now, I may be not finding an obvious better answer, but if my answer is the "correct", that means that sometimes writting unit tests can break encapsulation, and divide the same responsibility into different classes. A simple example would be testing a setter method when a getter is not actually needed for anything in the real code. Please when aswering don't provide simple answers to specific cases I may have written. Rather, try to explain more of the generic case and theoretical approach. And this is neither language specific. Thanks in advance. EDIT: The answer given by Matthew Flynn was really insightful, but didn't quite answer the question. Altough he made the fair point that you either don't test private methods or extract them because they really are other concern and responsibility (or at least that was what I could understand from his answer), I think there are situations where unit testing private methods is useful. My primary example is when you have a class that has one responsibility but the output (or input) that it gives (takes) is just to complex. For example, a hashing function. There's no good way to break a hashing function apart and mantain cohesion and encapsulation. However, testing a hashing function can be really tough, since you would need to calculate by hand (you can't use code calculation to test code calculation!) the hashing, and test multiple cases where the hash changes. In that way (and this may be a question worth of its own topic) I think private method testing is the best way to handle it. Now, I'm not sure if I should ask another question, or ask it here, but are there any better way to test such complex output (input)? OBS: Please, if you think I should ask another question on that topic, leave a comment. :)

    Read the article

  • Creating dynamic breadcrumb in asp.net mvc with mvcsitemap provider

    - by Jalpesh P. Vadgama
    I have done lots breadcrumb kind of things in normal asp.net web forms I was looking for same for asp.net mvc. After searching on internet I have found one great nuget package for mvpsite map provider which can be easily implemented via site map provider. So let’s check how its works. I have create a new MVC 3 web application called breadcrumb and now I am adding a reference of site map provider via nuget package like following. You can find more information about MVC sitemap provider on following URL. https://github.com/maartenba/MvcSiteMapProvid So once you add site map provider. You will find a Mvc.SiteMap file like following. And following is content of that file. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <mvcSiteMap xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://mvcsitemap.codeplex.com/schemas/MvcSiteMap-File-3.0" xsi:schemaLocation="http://mvcsitemap.codeplex.com/schemas/MvcSiteMap-File-3.0 MvcSiteMapSchema.xsd" enableLocalization="true"> <mvcSiteMapNode title="Home" controller="Home" action="Index"> <mvcSiteMapNode title="About" controller="Home" action="About"/> </mvcSiteMapNode> </mvcSiteMap> So now we have added site map so now its time to make breadcrumb dynamic. So as we all know that with in the standard asp.net mvc template we have action link by default for Home and About like following. <div id="menucontainer"> <ul id="menu"> <li>@Html.ActionLink("Home", "Index", "Home")</li> <li>@Html.ActionLink("About", "About", "Home")</li> </ul> </div> Now I want to replace that with our sitemap provider and make it dynamic so I have added the following code. <div id="menucontainer"> @Html.MvcSiteMap().Menu(true) </div> That’s it. This is the magic code @Html.MvcSiteMap will dynamically create breadcrumb for you. Now let’s run this in browser. You can see that it has created breadcrumb dynamically without writing any action link code. So here you can see with MvcSiteMap provider we don’t have to write any code we just need to add menu syntax and rest it will do automatically. That’s it. Hope you liked it. Stay tuned for more till then happy programming.

    Read the article

  • Is the 'C' in MVC really necessary?

    - by Anne Nonimus
    I understand the role of the model and view in the Model-View-Controller pattern, but I have a hard time understanding why a controller is necessary. Let's assume we're creating a chess program using an MVC approach; the game state should be the model, and the GUI should be the view. What exactly is the controller in this case? Is it just a separate class that has all the functions that will be called when you, say, click on a tile? Why not just perform all the logic on the model in the view itself?

    Read the article

  • does my js replace view?

    - by Milla Well
    I am writing a web application which is based on Codeigniter and jQuery. I primarily use ajax to call my controller functions and it turned out, that there are just 4 view*.php files, because most of my contoller functions return JSON data, which is processed in my jQuery. So my actual code is divided in kind of MVCC model: Codeigniter model (db, computations) Codeigniter controller (filtering, xss-cleaning, checking permissions, call model functions) jQuery controller (callback functions) jQuery view (adding/removing classes, appending elements,... ) So I violate the paradigm of not using the echo function in my Codeiginter controller and simply call echo json_encode($result); because it doesn't make any sense to me to create a view*.php file for one loc. Especially because all the regular view*.php stuff is covered in my jQuery view. I was wondering if I am missing something out, or if there is a way to integrate this jQuery-controller in my Codeigniter. I found some words on this topic, but this seems pretty handmade. Are there some neat solutions? Does a MVCC model make sense?

    Read the article

  • Should adapters or wrappers be unit tested?

    - by m3th0dman
    Suppose that I have a class that implements some logic: public MyLogicImpl implements MyLogic { public void myLogicMethod() { //my logic here } } and somewhere else a test class: public MyLogicImplTest { @Test public void testMyLogicMethod() { /test my logic } } I also have: @WebService public MyWebServices class { @Inject private MyLogic myLogic; @WebMethod public void myLogicWebMethod() { myLogic.myLogicMethod(); } } Should there be a test unit for myLogicWebMethod or should the testing for it be handled in integration testing.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing with NUnit and Moles Redux

    - by João Angelo
    Almost two years ago, when Moles was still being packaged alongside Pex, I wrote a post on how to run NUnit tests supporting moled types. A lot has changed since then and Moles is now being distributed independently of Pex, but maintaining support for integration with NUnit and other testing frameworks. For NUnit the support is provided by an addin class library (Microsoft.Moles.NUnit.dll) that you need to reference in your test project so that you can decorate yours tests with the MoledAttribute. The addin DLL must also be placed in the addins folder inside the NUnit installation directory. There is however a downside, since Moles and NUnit follow a different release cycle and the addin DLL must be built against a specific NUnit version, you may find that the release included with the latest version of Moles does not work with your version of NUnit. Fortunately the code for building the NUnit addin is supplied in the archive (moles.samples.zip) that you can found in the Documentation folder inside the Moles installation directory. By rebuilding the addin against your specific version of NUnit you are able to support any version. Also to note that in Moles 0.94.51023.0 the addin code did not support the use of TestCaseAttribute in your moled tests. However, if you need this support, you need to make just a couple of changes. Change the ITestDecorator.Decorate method in the MolesAddin class: Test ITestDecorator.Decorate(Test test, MemberInfo member) { SafeDebug.AssumeNotNull(test, "test"); SafeDebug.AssumeNotNull(member, "member"); bool isTestFixture = true; isTestFixture &= test.IsSuite; isTestFixture &= test.FixtureType != null; bool hasMoledAttribute = true; hasMoledAttribute &= !SafeArray.IsNullOrEmpty( member.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(MoledAttribute), false)); if (!isTestFixture && hasMoledAttribute) { return new MoledTest(test); } return test; } Change the Tests property in the MoledTest class: public override System.Collections.IList Tests { get { if (this.test.Tests == null) { return null; } var moled = new List<Test>(this.test.Tests.Count); foreach (var test in this.test.Tests) { moled.Add(new MoledTest((Test)test)); } return moled; } } Disclaimer: I only tested this implementation against NUnit 2.5.10.11092 version. Finally you just need to run the NUnit console runner through the Moles runner. A quick example follows: moles.runner.exe [Tests.dll] /r:nunit-console.exe /x86 /args:[NUnitArgument1] /args:[NUnitArgument2]

    Read the article

  • Switch vs Polymorphism when dealing with model and view

    - by Raphael Oliveira
    I can't figure out a better solution to my problem. I have a view controller that presents a list of elements. Those elements are models that can be an instance of B, C, D, etc and inherit from A. So in that view controller, each item should go to a different screen of the application and pass some data when the user select one of them. The two alternatives that comes to my mind are (please ignore the syntax, it is not a specific language) 1) switch (I know that sucks) //inside the view controller void onClickItem(int index) { A a = items.get(index); switch(a.type) { case b: B b = (B)a; go to screen X; x.v1 = b.v1; // fill X with b data x.v2 = b.v2; case c: go to screen Y; etc... } } 2) polymorphism //inside the view controller void onClickItem(int index) { A a = items.get(index); Screen s = new (a.getDestinationScreen()); //ignore the syntax s.v1 = a.v1; // fill s with information about A s.v2 = a.v2; show(s); } //inside B Class getDestinationScreen(void) { return Class(X); } //inside C Class getDestinationScreen(void) { return Class(Y); } My problem with solution 2 is that since B, C, D, etc are models, they shouldn't know about view related stuff. Or should they in that case?

    Read the article

  • How to test views in ASP.NET MVC2 (ala RSpec)

    - by Dmitriy Nagirnyak
    Hi, I am really missing heavily the ability to test Views independently of controllers. The way RSpec allows to do it. What I want to do is to perform assertions on the rendered view (where no controller is involved!). In order to do so I should provide required Model, ViewData and maybe some details from HttpContextBase (when will we get rid of HttpContext!). So far I have not found anything that allows doing it. Also it might heavily depend on the ViewEngine being used. List of things that views might contain are: Partial views (may be nested deeply). Master pages (or similar in other view engines). Html helpers generating links and other elements. Generally almost anything in a range of common sense :) . Also please note that I am not talking about client-side testing and thus Selenium is just not related to it at all. It is just plain .NET testing. So are there any options to actually do the testing of views? Thanks, Dmitriy.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >