Search Results

Search found 13281 results on 532 pages for 'model associations'.

Page 5/532 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Should a model binder populate all of the model?

    - by Richard
    Should a model binder populate all of the model, or only the bits that are being posted? For example, I am adding a product in my system and on the form i want the user to select which sites the new product will appear on. Therefore, in my model I want to populate a collection called "AllAvailableSites" to render the checkboxes for the user to choose from. I also need to populate the model with any chosen sites on a post in case the form does not validate, and I need to represent the form showing the initial selections. It would seem that I should let the model binder set the chosen sites on the model, and (once in the controller method) I set the "AllAvailableSites" on the model. Does that sound right? It seems more efficient to set everything in the model binder but someone is suggesting it is not quite right. I am grateful for any advice; I have to say that all the MVC model binding help online seems to cite really simple examples, nothing complicated. Do I really need a GET and a POST version of a method? Can't they just take the same view model? Then I check in my model binder if it is a GET/POST, and populate all the model accordingly.

    Read the article

  • How to create a link to Nintex Start Workflow Page in the document set home page

    - by ybbest
    In this blog post, I’d like to show you how to create a link to start Nintex Workflow Page in the document set home page. 1. Firstly, you need to upload the latest version of jQuery to the style library of your team site. 2. Then, upload a text file to the style library for writing your own html and JavaScript 3. In the document set home page, insert a new content editor web part and link the text file you just upload. 4. Update the text file with the following content, you can download this file here. <script type="text/javascript" src="/Style%20Library/jquery-1.9.0.min.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_layouts/sp.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function() { listItemId=getParameterByName("ID"); setTheWorkflowLink("YBBESTDocumentLibrary"); }); function buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,itemId) { var workflowLink =webRelativeUrl+"_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list="+listId+"&ID="+itemId+"&WorkflowName=Start Approval"; return workflowLink; } function getParameterByName(name) { name = name.replace(/[\[]/, "\\\[").replace(/[\]]/, "\\\]"); var regexS = "[\\?&]" + name + "=([^&#]*)"; var regex = new RegExp(regexS); var results = regex.exec(window.location.search); if(results == null){ return ""; } else{ return decodeURIComponent(results[1].replace(/\+/g, " ")); } } function setTheWorkflowLink(listName) { var SPContext = new SP.ClientContext.get_current(); web = SPContext.get_web(); list = web.get_lists().getByTitle(listName); SPContext.load(web,"ServerRelativeUrl"); SPContext.load(list, 'Title', 'Id'); SPContext.executeQueryAsync(setTheWorkflowLink_Success, setTheWorkflowLink_Fail); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Success(sender, args) { var listId = list.get_id(); var listTitle = list.get_title(); var webRelativeUrl = web.get_serverRelativeUrl(); var startWorkflowLink=buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,listItemId) $("a#submitLink").attr('href',startWorkflowLink); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Fail(sender, args) { alert("There is a problem setting up the submit exam approval link"); } </script> <a href="" target="_blank" id="submitLink"><span style="font-size:14pt">Start the approval process.</span></a> 5. Save your changes and go to the document set Item, you will see the link is on the home page now. Notes: 1. You can create a link to start the workflow using the following build dynamic string configuration: {Common:WebUrl}/_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list={Common:ListID}&ID={ItemProperty:ID}&WorkflowName=workflowname. With this link you will still need to click the start button, this is standard SharePoint behaviour and cannot be altered. References: http://connect.nintex.com/forums/27143/ShowThread.aspx How to use html and JavaScript in Content Editor web part in SharePoint2010

    Read the article

  • Class-Level Model Validation with EF Code First and ASP.NET MVC 3

    - by ScottGu
    Earlier this week the data team released the CTP5 build of the new Entity Framework Code-First library.  In my blog post a few days ago I talked about a few of the improvements introduced with the new CTP5 build.  Automatic support for enforcing DataAnnotation validation attributes on models was one of the improvements I discussed.  It provides a pretty easy way to enable property-level validation logic within your model layer. You can apply validation attributes like [Required], [Range], and [RegularExpression] – all of which are built-into .NET 4 – to your model classes in order to enforce that the model properties are valid before they are persisted to a database.  You can also create your own custom validation attributes (like this cool [CreditCard] validator) and have them be automatically enforced by EF Code First as well.  This provides a really easy way to validate property values on your models.  I showed some code samples of this in action in my previous post. Class-Level Model Validation using IValidatableObject DataAnnotation attributes provides an easy way to validate individual property values on your model classes.  Several people have asked - “Does EF Code First also support a way to implement class-level validation methods on model objects, for validation rules than need to span multiple property values?”  It does – and one easy way you can enable this is by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on your model classes. IValidatableObject.Validate() Method Below is an example of using the IValidatableObject interface (which is built-into .NET 4 within the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace) to implement two custom validation rules on a Product model class.  The two rules ensure that: New units can’t be ordered if the Product is in a discontinued state New units can’t be ordered if there are already more than 100 units in stock We will enforce these business rules by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on our Product class, and by implementing its Validate() method like so: The IValidatableObject.Validate() method can apply validation rules that span across multiple properties, and can yield back multiple validation errors. Each ValidationResult returned can supply both an error message as well as an optional list of property names that caused the violation (which is useful when displaying error messages within UI). Automatic Validation Enforcement EF Code-First (starting with CTP5) now automatically invokes the Validate() method when a model object that implements the IValidatableObject interface is saved.  You do not need to write any code to cause this to happen – this support is now enabled by default. This new support means that the below code – which violates one of our above business rules – will automatically throw an exception (and abort the transaction) when we call the “SaveChanges()” method on our Northwind DbContext: In addition to reactively handling validation exceptions, EF Code First also allows you to proactively check for validation errors.  Starting with CTP5, you can call the “GetValidationErrors()” method on the DbContext base class to retrieve a list of validation errors within the model objects you are working with.  GetValidationErrors() will return a list of all validation errors – regardless of whether they are generated via DataAnnotation attributes or by an IValidatableObject.Validate() implementation.  Below is an example of proactively using the GetValidationErrors() method to check (and handle) errors before trying to call SaveChanges(): ASP.NET MVC 3 and IValidatableObject ASP.NET MVC 2 included support for automatically honoring and enforcing DataAnnotation attributes on model objects that are used with ASP.NET MVC’s model binding infrastructure.  ASP.NET MVC 3 goes further and also honors the IValidatableObject interface.  This combined support for model validation makes it easy to display appropriate error messages within forms when validation errors occur.  To see this in action, let’s consider a simple Create form that allows users to create a new Product: We can implement the above Create functionality using a ProductsController class that has two “Create” action methods like below: The first Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-GET requests - and displays the HTML form to fill-out.  The second Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-POST requests - and which takes the posted form data, ensures that is is valid, and if it is valid saves it in the database.  If there are validation issues it redisplays the form with the posted values.  The razor view template of our “Create” view (which renders the form) looks like below: One of the nice things about the above Controller + View implementation is that we did not write any validation logic within it.  The validation logic and business rules are instead implemented entirely within our model layer, and the ProductsController simply checks whether it is valid (by calling the ModelState.IsValid helper method) to determine whether to try and save the changes or redisplay the form with errors. The Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method calls within our view simply display the error messages our Product model’s DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject.Validate() method returned.  We can see the above scenario in action by filling out invalid data within the form and attempting to submit it: Notice above how when we hit the “Create” button we got an error message.  This was because we ticked the “Discontinued” checkbox while also entering a value for the UnitsOnOrder (and so violated one of our business rules).  You might ask – how did ASP.NET MVC know to highlight and display the error message next to the UnitsOnOrder textbox?  It did this because ASP.NET MVC 3 now honors the IValidatableObject interface when performing model binding, and will retrieve the error messages from validation failures with it. The business rule within our Product model class indicated that the “UnitsOnOrder” property should be highlighted when the business rule we hit was violated: Our Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method knew to display the business rule error message (next to the UnitsOnOrder edit box) because of the above property name hint we supplied: Keeping things DRY ASP.NET MVC and EF Code First enables you to keep your validation and business rules in one place (within your model layer), and avoid having it creep into your Controllers and Views.  Keeping the validation logic in the model layer helps ensure that you do not duplicate validation/business logic as you add more Controllers and Views to your application.  It allows you to quickly change your business rules/validation logic in one single place (within your model layer) – and have all controllers/views across your application immediately reflect it.  This help keep your application code clean and easily maintainable, and makes it much easier to evolve and update your application in the future. Summary EF Code First (starting with CTP5) now has built-in support for both DataAnnotations and the IValidatableObject interface.  This allows you to easily add validation and business rules to your models, and have EF automatically ensure that they are enforced anytime someone tries to persist changes of them to a database.  ASP.NET MVC 3 also now supports both DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject as well, which makes it even easier to use them with your EF Code First model layer – and then have the controllers/views within your web layer automatically honor and support them as well.  This makes it easy to build clean and highly maintainable applications. You don’t have to use DataAnnotations or IValidatableObject to perform your validation/business logic.  You can always roll your own custom validation architecture and/or use other more advanced validation frameworks/patterns if you want.  But for a lot of applications this built-in support will probably be sufficient – and provide a highly productive way to build solutions. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. In addition to blogging, I am also now using Twitter for quick updates and to share links. Follow me at: twitter.com/scottgu

    Read the article

  • MVC 2 Entity Framework View Model Insert

    - by cannibalcorpse
    This is driving me crazy. Hopefully my question makes sense... I'm using MVC 2 and Entity Framework 1 and am trying to insert a new record with two navigation properties. I have a SQL table, Categories, that has a lookup table CategoryTypes and another self-referencing lookup CategoryParent. EF makes two nav properties on my Category model, one called Parent and another called CategoryType, both instances of their respective models. On my view that creates the new Category, I have two dropdowns, one for the CategoryType and another for the ParentCategory. When I try and insert the new Category WITHOUT the ParentCategory, which allows nulls, everything is fine. As soon as I add the ParentCategory, the insert fails, and oddly (or so I think) complains about the CategoryType in the form of this error: 0 related 'CategoryTypes' were found. 1 'CategoryTypes' is expected. When I step through, I can verifiy that both ID properties coming in on the action method parameter are correct. I can also verify that when I go to the db to get the CategoryType and ParentCategory with the ID's, the records are being pulled fine. Yet it fails on SaveChanges(). All that I can see is that my CategoryParent dropdownlistfor in my view, is somehow causing the insert to bomb. Please see my comments in my httpPost Create action method. My view model looks like this: public class EditModel { public Category MainCategory { get; set; } public IEnumerable<CategoryType> CategoryTypesList { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Category> ParentCategoriesList { get; set; } } My Create action methods look like this: // GET: /Categories/Create public ActionResult Create() { return View(new EditModel() { CategoryTypesList = _db.CategoryTypeSet.ToList(), ParentCategoriesList = _db.CategorySet.ToList() }); } // POST: /Categories/Create [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(Category mainCategory) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) return View(new EditModel() { MainCategory = mainCategory, CategoryTypesList = _db.CategoryTypeSet.ToList(), ParentCategoriesList = _db.CategorySet.ToList() }); mainCategory.CategoryType = _db.CategoryTypeSet.First(ct => ct.Id == mainCategory.CategoryType.Id); // This db call DOES get the correct Category, but fails on _db.SaveChanges(). // Oddly the error is related to CategoryTypes and not Category. // Entities in 'DbEntities.CategorySet' participate in the 'FK_Categories_CategoryTypes' relationship. // 0 related 'CategoryTypes' were found. 1 'CategoryTypes' is expected. //mainCategory.Parent = _db.CategorySet.First(c => c.Id == mainCategory.Parent.Id); // If I just use the literal ID of the same Category, // AND comment out the CategoryParent dropdownlistfor in the view, all is fine. mainCategory.Parent = _db.CategorySet.First(c => c.Id == 2); _db.AddToCategorySet(mainCategory); _db.SaveChanges(); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } Here is my Create form on the view : <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) %> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.Parent.Id) %> <%= Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.MainCategory.Parent.Id, new SelectList(Model.ParentCategoriesList, "Id", "Name")) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.Parent.Id) %> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.CategoryType.Id) %> <%= Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.MainCategory.CategoryType.Id, new SelectList(Model.CategoryTypesList, "Id", "Name"))%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.CategoryType.Id)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.Name) %> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.MainCategory.Name)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.Name)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.Description)%> <%= Html.TextAreaFor(model => model.MainCategory.Description)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.Description)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.SeoName)%> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.MainCategory.SeoName, new { @class = "large" })%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.SeoName)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.HasHomepage)%> <%= Html.CheckBoxFor(model => model.MainCategory.HasHomepage)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.HasHomepage)%> </div> <p><input type="submit" value="Create" /></p> </fieldset> <% } %> Maybe I've just been staying up too late playing with MVC 2? :) Please let me know if I'm not being clear enough.

    Read the article

  • Refer to similar associated models with a common name

    - by Horace Loeb
    I have these models: class Bill < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :calls has_many :text_messages end class Call < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :bill end class TextMessage < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :bill end Now, in my domain calls and text messages are both "the same kind of thing" -- i.e., they're both "bill items". So I'd like some_bill.bill_items to return all calls and text messages associated with that bill. What's the best way to do this?

    Read the article

  • CakePhp: model recursive associations and find

    - by Petecocoon
    Hello to everybody! I've some trouble with a find() on a model on CakePhp. I have three model relationed in this way: Project(some_fields, item_id) ------belongsTo----- Item(some_fields, item_id) ------belongsTo----- User(some_fields campi, nickname) I need to do a find() and retrieve all fields from project, a field from Item and the nickname field from User. This is my code: $this->set('projects', $this->Project->find('all', array('recursive' => 2))); but my output doesn't contains the user object. I've tried with Containable behaviour but the output is the same. What is broken? Many many Thanks Peter

    Read the article

  • Passing variables from Model to Model in codeigniter

    - by Craig Ward
    Hi, I need to pass a variable to model, that model needs to send another back and use that variable to query a different model. EG: I have a product_ID which I send to the product model, From that I find out the supplier_ID. I want to grab that supplier_ID to the supplier model to get the supplier name. How do you implement this in codeigniter?

    Read the article

  • Rails has_one vs belongs_to semantics

    - by Anurag
    I have a model representing a Content item that contains some images. The number of images are fixed as these image references are very specific to the content. For example, the Content model refers to the Image model twice (profile image, and background image). I am trying to avoid a generic has_many, and sticking to multiple has_one's. The current database structure looks like: contents - id:integer - integer:profile_image_id - integer:background_image_id images - integer:id - string:filename - integer:content_id I just can't figure out how to setup the associations correctly here. The Content model could contain two belongs_to references to an Image, but that doesn't seem semantically right cause ideally an image belongs to the content, or in other words, the content has two images. This is the best I could think of (by breaking the semantics): class Content belongs_to :profile_image, :class_name => 'Image', :foreign_key => 'profile_image_id' belongs_to :background_image, :class_name => 'Image', :foreign_key => 'background_image_id' end Am I way off, and there a better way to achieve this association?

    Read the article

  • JQuery pass model to controller

    - by slandau
    I want to pass the mvc page model back to my controller within a Javascript Object. How would I do that? var urlString = "<%= System.Web.VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/mvc/Indications.cfc/ExportToExcel")%>"; var jsonNickname = { model: Model, viewName: "<%= VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/Views/Indications/TermSheetViews/Swap/CashFlows.aspx")%>", fileName: 'Cashflows.xls' } $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: urlString, data: jsonNickname, async: false, success: function (data) { $('#termSheetPrinted').append(data); } }); So where it says model: Model, I want the Model to be the actual page model that I declare at the top of the page: Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Chatham.Web.Models.Indications.SwapModel>" How can I do that?

    Read the article

  • How should I architect my Model and Data Access layer objects in my website?

    - by Robin Winslow
    I've been tasked with designing Data layer for a website at work, and I am very interested in architecture of code for the best flexibility, maintainability and readability. I am generally acutely aware of the value in completely separating out my actual Models from the Data Access layer, so that the Models are completely naive when it comes to Data Access. And in this case it's particularly useful to do this as the Models may be built from the Database or may be built from a Soap web service. So it seems to me to make sense to have Factories in my data access layer which create Model objects. So here's what I have so far (in my made-up pseudocode): class DataAccess.ProductsFromXml extends DataAccess.ProductFactory {} class DataAccess.ProductsFromDatabase extends DataAccess.ProductFactory {} These then get used in the controller in a fashion similar to the following: var xmlProductCreator = DataAccess.ProductsFromXml(xmlDataProvider); var databaseProductCreator = DataAccess.ProductsFromXml(xmlDataProvider); // Returns array of Product model objects var XmlProducts = databaseProductCreator.Products(); // Returns array of Product model objects var DbProducts = xmlProductCreator.Products(); So my question is, is this a good structure for my Data Access layer? Is it a good idea to use a Factory for building my Model objects from the data? Do you think I've misunderstood something? And are there any general patterns I should read up on for how to write my data access objects to create my Model objects?

    Read the article

  • How do you formulate the Domain Model in Domain Driven Design properly (Bounded Contexts, Domains)?

    - by lko
    Say you have a few applications which deal with a few different Core Domains. The examples are made up and it's hard to put a real example with meaningful data together (concisely). In Domain Driven Design (DDD) when you start looking at Bounded Contexts and Domains/Sub Domains, it says that a Bounded Context is a "phase" in a lifecycle. An example of Context here would be within an ecommerce system. Although you could model this as a single system, it would also warrant splitting into separate Contexts. Each of these areas within the application have their own Ubiquitous Language, their own Model, and a way to talk to other Bounded Contexts to obtain the information they need. The Core, Sub, and Generic Domains are the area of expertise and can be numerous in complex applications. Say there is a long process dealing with an Entity for example a Book in a core domain. Now looking at the Bounded Contexts there can be a number of phases in the books life-cycle. Say outline, creation, correction, publish, sale phases. Now imagine a second core domain, perhaps a store domain. The publisher has its own branch of stores to sell books. The store can have a number of Bounded Contexts (life-cycle phases) for example a "Stock" or "Inventory" context. In the first domain there is probably a Book database table with basically just an ID to track the different book Entities in the different life-cycles. Now suppose you have 10+ supporting domains e.g. Users, Catalogs, Inventory, .. (hard to think of relevant examples). For example a DomainModel for the Book Outline phase, the Creation phase, Correction phase, Publish phase, Sale phase. Then for the Store core domain it probably has a number of life-cycle phases. public class BookId : Entity { public long Id { get; set; } } In the creation phase (Bounded Context) the book could be a simple class. public class Book : BookId { public string Title { get; set; } public List<string> Chapters { get; set; } //... } Whereas in the publish phase (Bounded Context) it would have all the text, release date etc. public class Book : BookId { public DateTime ReleaseDate { get; set; } //... } The immediate benefit I can see in separating by "life-cycle phase" is that it's a great way to separate business logic so there aren't mammoth all-encompassing Entities nor Domain Services. A problem I have is figuring out how to concretely define the rules to the physical layout of the Domain Model. A. Does the Domain Model get "modeled" so there are as many bounded contexts (separate projects etc.) as there are life-cycle phases across the core domains in a complex application? Edit: Answer to A. Yes, according to the answer by Alexey Zimarev there should be an entire "Domain" for each bounded context. B. Is the Domain Model typically arranged by Bounded Contexts (or Domains, or both)? Edit: Answer to B. Each Bounded Context should have its own complete "Domain" (Service/Entities/VO's/Repositories) C. Does it mean there can easily be 10's of "segregated" Domain Models and multiple projects can use it (the Entities/Value Objects)? Edit: Answer to C. There is a complete "Domain" for each Bounded Context and the Domain Model (Entity/VO layer/project) isn't "used" by the other Bounded Contexts directly, only via chosen paths (i.e. via Domain Events). The part that I am trying to figure out is how the Domain Model is actually implemented once you start to figure out your Bounded Contexts and Core/Sub Domains, particularly in complex applications. The goal is to establish the definitions which can help to separate Entities between the Bounded Contexts and Domains.

    Read the article

  • What is a good strategy for binding view objects to model objects in C++?

    - by B.J.
    Imagine I have a rich data model that is represented by a hierarchy of objects. I also have a view hierarchy with views that can extract required data from model objects and display the data (and allow the user to manipulate the data). Actually, there could be multiple view hierarchies that can represent and manipulate the model (e.g. an overview-detail view and a direct manipulation view). My current approach for this is for the controller layer to store a reference to the underlying model object in the View object. The view object can then get the current data from the model for display, and can send the model object messages to update the data. View objects are effectively observers of the model objects and the model objects broadcast notifications when properties change. This approach allows all the views to update simultaneously when any view changes the model. Implemented carefully, this all works. However, it does require a lot of work to ensure that no view or model objects hold any stale references to model objects. The user can delete model objects or sub-hierarchies of the model at any time. Ensuring that all the view objects that hold references to the model objects that have been deleted is time-consuming and difficult. It feels like the approach I have been taking is not especially clean; while I don't want to have to have explicit code in the controller layer for mediating the communication between the views and the model, it seems like there must be a better (implicit) approach for establishing bindings between the view and the model and between related model objects. In particular, I am looking for an approach (in C++) that understands two key points: There is a many to one relationship between view and model objects If the underlying model object is destroyed, all the dependent view objects must be cleaned up so that no stale references exist While shared_ptr and weak_ptr can be used to manage the lifetimes of the underlying model objects and allows for weak references from the view to the model, they don't provide for notification of the destruction of the underlying object (they do in the sense that the use of a stale weak_ptr allows for notification), but I need an approach that notifies the dependent objects that their weak reference is going away. Can anyone suggest a good strategy to manage this?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET. MVC2. Entity Framework. Cannot pass primary key value back from view to [HttpPost]

    - by Paul Connolly
    I pass a ViewModel (which contains a "Person" object) from the "EditPerson" controller action into the view. When posted back from the view, the ActionResult receives all of the Person properties except the ID (which it says is zero instead of say its real integer) Can anyone tell me why? The controllers look like this: public ActionResult EditPerson(int personID) { var personToEdit = repository.GetPerson(personID); FormationViewModel vm = new FormationViewModel(); vm.Person = personToEdit; return View(vm); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult EditPerson(FormationViewModel model) <<Passes in all properties except ID { // Persistence code } The View looks like this: <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Afp.Models.Formation.FormationViewModel>" %> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {% <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) % <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Title) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Title) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Title) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Forename)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Forename)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Forename)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Surname)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Surname)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Surname)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.DOB) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.DOB, String.Format("{0:g}", Model.DOB)) <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.DOB) %> </div>--%> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Nationality)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Nationality)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Nationality)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Occupation)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Occupation)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Occupation)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.CountryOfResidence)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.CountryOfResidence)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.CountryOfResidence)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.PreviousNameForename)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.PreviousNameForename)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.PreviousNameForename)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.PreviousSurname)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.PreviousSurname)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.PreviousSurname)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Email)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Email)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Email)%> </div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Save" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } % And the Person class looks like: [MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))] public partial class Person { public Person() { } } [Bind(Exclude = "ID")] public class Person_Validation { public int ID { get; private set; } public string Title { get; set; } public string Forename { get; set; } public string Surname { get; set; } public System.DateTime DOB { get; set; } public string Nationality { get; set; } public string Occupation { get; set; } public string CountryOfResidence { get; set; } public string PreviousNameForename { get; set; } public string PreviousSurname { get; set; } public string Email { get; set; } } And ViewModel: public class FormationViewModel { public Company Company { get; set; } public Address RegisteredAddress { get; set; } public Person Person { get; set; } public PersonType PersonType { get; set; } public int CurrentStep { get; set; } } }

    Read the article

  • LLBLGen Pro feature highlights: grouping model elements

    - by FransBouma
    (This post is part of a series of posts about features of the LLBLGen Pro system) When working with an entity model which has more than a few entities, it's often convenient to be able to group entities together if they belong to a semantic sub-model. For example, if your entity model has several entities which are about 'security', it would be practical to group them together under the 'security' moniker. This way, you could easily find them back, yet they can be left inside the complete entity model altogether so their relationships with entities outside the group are kept. In other situations your domain consists of semi-separate entity models which all target tables/views which are located in the same database. It then might be convenient to have a single project to manage the complete target database, yet have the entity models separate of each other and have them result in separate code bases. LLBLGen Pro can do both for you. This blog post will illustrate both situations. The feature is called group usage and is controllable through the project settings. This setting is supported on all supported O/R mapper frameworks. Situation one: grouping entities in a single model. This situation is common for entity models which are dense, so many relationships exist between all sub-models: you can't split them up easily into separate models (nor do you likely want to), however it's convenient to have them grouped together into groups inside the entity model at the project level. A typical example for this is the AdventureWorks example database for SQL Server. This database, which is a single catalog, has for each sub-group a schema, however most of these schemas are tightly connected with each other: adding all schemas together will give a model with entities which indirectly are related to all other entities. LLBLGen Pro's default setting for group usage is AsVisualGroupingMechanism which is what this situation is all about: we group the elements for visual purposes, it has no real meaning for the model nor the code generated. Let's reverse engineer AdventureWorks to an entity model. By default, LLBLGen Pro uses the target schema an element is in which is being reverse engineered, as the group it will be in. This is convenient if you already have categorized tables/views in schemas, like which is the case in AdventureWorks. Of course this can be switched off, or corrected on the fly. When reverse engineering, we'll walk through a wizard which will guide us with the selection of the elements which relational model data should be retrieved, which we can later on use to reverse engineer to an entity model. The first step after specifying which database server connect to is to select these elements. below we can see the AdventureWorks catalog as well as the different schemas it contains. We'll include all of them. After the wizard completes, we have all relational model data nicely in our catalog data, with schemas. So let's reverse engineer entities from the tables in these schemas. We select in the catalog explorer the schemas 'HumanResources', 'Person', 'Production', 'Purchasing' and 'Sales', then right-click one of them and from the context menu, we select Reverse engineer Tables to Entity Definitions.... This will bring up the dialog below. We check all checkboxes in one go by checking the checkbox at the top to mark them all to be added to the project. As you can see LLBLGen Pro has already filled in the group name based on the schema name, as this is the default and we didn't change the setting. If you want, you can select multiple rows at once and set the group name to something else using the controls on the dialog. We're fine with the group names chosen so we'll simply click Add to Project. This gives the following result:   (I collapsed the other groups to keep the picture small ;)). As you can see, the entities are now grouped. Just to see how dense this model is, I've expanded the relationships of Employee: As you can see, it has relationships with entities from three other groups than HumanResources. It's not doable to cut up this project into sub-models without duplicating the Employee entity in all those groups, so this model is better suited to be used as a single model resulting in a single code base, however it benefits greatly from having its entities grouped into separate groups at the project level, to make work done on the model easier. Now let's look at another situation, namely where we work with a single database while we want to have multiple models and for each model a separate code base. Situation two: grouping entities in separate models within the same project. To get rid of the entities to see the second situation in action, simply undo the reverse engineering action in the project. We still have the AdventureWorks relational model data in the catalog. To switch LLBLGen Pro to see each group in the project as a separate project, open the Project Settings, navigate to General and set Group usage to AsSeparateProjects. In the catalog explorer, select Person and Production, right-click them and select again Reverse engineer Tables to Entities.... Again check the checkbox at the top to mark all entities to be added and click Add to Project. We get two groups, as expected, however this time the groups are seen as separate projects. This means that the validation logic inside LLBLGen Pro will see it as an error if there's e.g. a relationship or an inheritance edge linking two groups together, as that would lead to a cyclic reference in the code bases. To see this variant of the grouping feature, seeing the groups as separate projects, in action, we'll generate code from the project with the two groups we just created: select from the main menu: Project -> Generate Source-code... (or press F7 ;)). In the dialog popping up, select the target .NET framework you want to use, the template preset, fill in a destination folder and click Start Generator (normal). This will start the code generator process. As expected the code generator has simply generated two code bases, one for Person and one for Production: The group name is used inside the namespace for the different elements. This allows you to add both code bases to a single solution and use them together in a different project without problems. Below is a snippet from the code file of a generated entity class. //... using System.Xml.Serialization; using AdventureWorks.Person; using AdventureWorks.Person.HelperClasses; using AdventureWorks.Person.FactoryClasses; using AdventureWorks.Person.RelationClasses; using SD.LLBLGen.Pro.ORMSupportClasses; namespace AdventureWorks.Person.EntityClasses { //... /// <summary>Entity class which represents the entity 'Address'.<br/><br/></summary> [Serializable] public partial class AddressEntity : CommonEntityBase //... The advantage of this is that you can have two code bases and work with them separately, yet have a single target database and maintain everything in a single location. If you decide to move to a single code base, you can do so with a change of one setting. It's also useful if you want to keep the groups as separate models (and code bases) yet want to add relationships to elements from another group using a copy of the entity: you can simply reverse engineer the target table to a new entity into a different group, effectively making a copy of the entity. As there's a single target database, changes made to that database are reflected in both models which makes maintenance easier than when you'd have a separate project for each group, with its own relational model data. Conclusion LLBLGen Pro offers a flexible way to work with entities in sub-models and control how the sub-models end up in the generated code.

    Read the article

  • Modeling Buyers & Sellers in a Rails Ecommerce App

    - by MikeH
    I'm building a Rails app that has Etsy.com style functionality. In other words, it's like a mall. There are many buyers and many sellers. I'm torn about how to model the sellers. Key facts: There won't be many sellers. Perhaps less than 20 sellers in total. There will be many buyers. Hopefully many thousands :) I already have a standard user model in place with account creation and roles. I've created a 'role' of 'seller', which the admin will manually apply to the proper users. Since we'll have very few sellers, this is not an issue. I'm considering two approaches: (1) Create a 'store' model, which will contain all the relevant store information. Products would :belong_to :store, rather than belonging to the seller. The relationship between the user and store models would be: user :has_one store. My main problem with this is that I've always found has_one associations to be a little funky, and I usually try to avoid them. The app is fairly complex, and I'm worried about running into a cascade of problems connected to the has_one association as I get further along into development. (2) Simply include the relevant 'store' information as part of the user model. But in this case, the store-related db columns would only apply to a very small percentage of users since very few users will also be sellers. I'm not sure if this is a valid concern or not. It's very possible that I'm thinking about this incorrectly. I appreciate any thoughts. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Changing Recovery Model in Replicated Database

    - by Rob
    I now am the proud owner of two servers that replicate with each other. I had nothing to do with the install, but (of course), now i have to support the databases. Both databases are in the Simple recovery model, but the users want to ensure as little data loss as possible so I'm thinking that I should change the recovery model over to full and start doing transaction log backups. I wasn't planning on backing up the subscribing database, only the publisher. Is this the right plan? Do I need to switch both the Subscriber and and the publisher to Full, or can I leave the subscriber in Simple, but have the Publisher in Full? When I change the recovery model in one (or both) do the databases need to be offline? Thanks

    Read the article

  • nested attributes with polymorphic has_one model

    - by Millisami
    I am using accepts_nested_attributes_for with the has_one polymorphic model in rails 2.3.5 Following are the models and its associations: class Address < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :city, :address1, :address2 belongs_to :addressable, :polymorphic => true validates_presence_of :address1, :address2, :city end class Vendor < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :name, :address_attributes has_one :address, :as => :addressable, :dependent => :destroy accepts_nested_attributes_for :address end This is the view: - form_for @vendor do |f| = f.error_messages %p = f.label :name %br = f.text_field :name - f.fields_for :address_attributes do |address| = render "shared/address_fields", :f => address %p = f.submit "Create" This is the partial shared/address_fields.html.haml %p = f.label :city %br= f.text_field :city %span City/Town name like Dharan, Butwal, Kathmandu, .. %p = f.label :address1 %br= f.text_field :address1 %span City Street name like Lazimpat, New Road, .. %p = f.label :address2 %br= f.text_field :address2 %span Tole, Marg, Chowk name like Pokhrel Tole, Shanti Marg, Pako, .. And this is the controller: class VendorsController < ApplicationController def new @vendor = Vendor.new end def create @vendor = Vendor.new(params[:vendor]) if @vendor.save flash[:notice] = "Vendor created successfully!" redirect_to @vendor else render :action => 'new' end end end The problem is when I fill in all the fileds, the record gets save on both tables as expected. But when I just the name and city or address1 filed, the validation works, error message shown, but the value I put in the city or address1, is not persisted or not displayed inside the address form fields? This is the same case with edit action too. Though the record is saved, the address doesn't show up on the edit form. Only the name of the Client model is shown. Actually, when I look at the log, the address model SQL is not queried even at all.

    Read the article

  • .Net MVC UserControl - Form values not mapped to model

    - by Andreas
    Hi I have a View that contains a usercontrol. The usercontrol is rendered using: <% Html.RenderPartial("GeneralStuff", Model.General, ViewData); %> My problem is that the usercontrol renders nicely with values from the model but when I post values edited in the usercontrol they are not mapped back to Model.General. I know I can find the values in Request.Form but I really thought that MVC would manage to map these values back to the model. My usercontrol: <%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<namespace.Models.GeneralViewModel>" %> <fieldset> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Value)%> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Value)%> </div> </fieldset> I'm using .Net MVC 2 Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • Define "Validation in the Model"

    - by sunwukung
    There have been a couple of discussions regarding the location of user input validation: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/659950/should-validation-be-done-in-form-objects-or-the-model http://stackoverflow.com/questions/134388/where-do-you-do-your-validation-model-controller-or-view These discussions were quite old, so I wanted to ask the question again to see if anyone had any fresh input. If not, I apologise in advance. If you come from the Validation in the Model camp - does Model mean OOP representation of data (i.e. Active Record/Data Mapper) as "Entity" (to borrow the DDD terminology) - in which case you would, I assume, want all Model classes to inherit common validation constraints. Or can these rules simply be part of a Service in the Model - i.e. a Validation service? For example, could you consider Zend_Form and it's validation classes part of the Model? The concept of a Domain Model does not appear to be limited to Entities, and so validation may not necessarily need to be confined to this Entities. It seems that you would require a lot of potentially superfluous handing of values and responses back and forth between forms and "Entities" - and in some instances you may not persist the data recieved from user input, or recieve it from user input at all.

    Read the article

  • Benchmarking ORM associations

    - by barerd
    I am trying to benchmark two cases of self referential many to many as described in datamapper associations. Both cases consist of an Item clss, which may require many other items. In both cases, I required the ruby benchmark library and source file, created two items and benchmarked require/unrequie functions as below: Benchmark.bmbm do |x| x.report("require:") { item_1.require_item item_2, 10 } x.report("unrequire:") { item_1.unrequire_item item_2 } end To be clear, both functions are datamapper add/modify functions like: componentMaps.create :component_id => item.id, :quantity => quantity componentMaps.all(:component_id => item.id).destroy! and links_to_components.create :component_id => item.id, :quantity => quantity links_to_components.all(:component_id => item.id).destroy! The results are variable and in the range of 0.018001 to 0.022001 for require function in both cases, and 0.006 to 0.01 for unrequire function in both cases. This made me suspicious about the correctness of my test method. Edit I went ahead and compared a "get by primary key case" to a "finding first matching record case" by: (1..10000).each do |i| Item.create :name => "item_#{i}" end Benchmark.bmbm do |x| x.report("Get") { item = Item.get 9712 } x.report("First") { item = Item.first :name => "item_9712" } end where the results were very different like 0 sec compared to 0.0312, as expected. This suggests that the benchmarking works. I wonder whether I benchmarked the two types of associations correctly, and whether a difference between 0.018 and 0.022 sec significant?

    Read the article

  • Persisting model state in ASP.NET MVC using Serialize HTMLHelper

    - by shiju
    ASP.NET MVC 2 futures assembly provides a HTML helper method Serialize that can be use for persisting your model object. The Serialize  helper method will serialize the model object and will persist it in a hidden field in the HTML form. The Serialize  helper is very useful when situations like you are making multi-step wizard where a single model class is using for all steps in the wizard. For each step you want to retain the model object's whole state.The below is serializing our model object. The model object should be a Serializable class in order to work with Serialize helper method. <% using (Html.BeginForm("Register","User")) {%><%= Html.Serialize("User",Model) %> This will generate hidden field with name "user" and the value will the serialized format of our model object.In the controller action, you can place the DeserializeAttribute in the action method parameter. [HttpPost]               public ActionResult Register([DeserializeAttribute] User user, FormCollection userForm) {     TryUpdateModel(user, userForm.ToValueProvider());     //To Do } In the above action method you will get the same model object that you serialized in your view template. We are updating the User model object with the form field values.

    Read the article

  • Persisting model state in ASP.NET MVC using Serialize HTMLHelper

    - by shiju
    ASP.NET MVC 2 futures assembly provides a HTML helper method Serialize that can be use for persisting your model object. The Serialize  helper method will serialize the model object and will persist it in a hidden field in the HTML form. The Serialize  helper is very useful when situations like you are making multi-step wizard where a single model class is using for all steps in the wizard. For each step you want to retain the model object's whole state.The below is serializing our model object. The model object should be a Serializable class in order to work with Serialize helper method. <% using (Html.BeginForm("Register","User")) {%><%= Html.Serialize("User",Model) %> This will generate hidden field with name "user" and the value will the serialized format of our model object.In the controller action, you can place the DeserializeAttribute in the action method parameter. [HttpPost]               public ActionResult Register([DeserializeAttribute] User user, FormCollection userForm) {     TryUpdateModel(user, userForm.ToValueProvider());     //To Do } In the above action method you will get the same model object that you serialized in your view template. We are updating the User model object with the form field values.

    Read the article

  • Best practices concerning view model and model updates with a subset of the fields

    - by Martin
    By picking MVC for developing our new site, I find myself in the midst of "best practices" being developed around me in apparent real time. Two weeks ago, NerdDinner was my guide but with the development of MVC 2, even it seems outdated. It's an thrilling experience and I feel privileged to be in close contact with intelligent programmers daily. Right now I've stumbled upon an issue I can't seem to get a straight answer on - from all the blogs anyway - and I'd like to get some insight from the community. It's about Editing (read: Edit action). The bulk of material out there, tutorials and blogs, deal with creating and view the model. So while this question may not spell out a question, I hope to get some discussion going, contributing to my decision about the path of development I'm to take. My model represents a user with several fields like name, address and email. All the names, in fact, on field each for first name, last name and middle name. The Details view displays all these fields but you can change only one set of fields at a time, for instance, your names. The user expands a form while the other fields are still visible above and below. So the form that is posted back contains a subset of the fields representing the model. While this is appealing to us and our layout concerns, for various reasons, it is to be shunned by serious MVC-developers. I've been reading about some patterns and best practices and it seems that this is not in key with the paradigm of viewmodel == view. Or have I got it wrong? Anyway, NerdDinner dictates using FormCollection och UpdateModel. All the null fields are happily ignored. Since then, the MVC-community has abandoned this approach to such a degree that a bug in MVC 2 was not discovered. UpdateModel does not work without a complete model in your formcollection. The view model pattern receiving most praise seems to be Dedicated view model that contains a custom view model entity and is the only one that my design issue could be made compatible with. It entails a tedious amount of mapping, albeit lightened by the use of AutoMapper and the ideas of Jimmy Bogard, that may or may not be worthwhile. He also proposes a 1:1 relationship between view and view model. In keeping with these design paradigms, I am to create a view and associated view for each of my expanding sets of fields. The view models would each be nearly identical, differing only in the fields which are read-only, the views also containing much repeated markup. This seems absurd to me. In future I may want to be able to display two, more or all sets of fields open simultaneously. I will most attentively read the discussion I hope to spark. Many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • rotating model around own Y-axis XNA

    - by ChocoMan
    I'm have trouble with my model rotating around it's own Y-axis. The model is a person. When I test my world, the model is loaded at a position of 0, 0, 0. When I rotate my model from there, the model rotates like normal. The problem comes AFTER I moved the model to a new position. If I move the the model forward, left, etc, then try to rotate it on it's own Y-Axis, the model will rotate, but still around the original position in a circular manner (think of yourself swing around on a rope, but always facing outward from the center). Does anyone know how to keep the center point of rotation updated?

    Read the article

  • Problem with updating data in asp .NET MVC 2 application

    - by Bojan
    Hello everyone, i am just getting started with asp .NET MVC 2 applications and i stumbled upon a problem. I'm having trouble updating my tables. The debugger doesn't report any error, it just doesn't do anything... I hope some can help me out. Thank you for your time. This is my controller code... public ActionResult Edit(int id) { var supplierToEdit = (from c in _entities.SupplierSet where c.SupplierId == id select c).FirstOrDefault(); return View(supplierToEdit); } // // POST: /Supplier/Edit/5 [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(Supplier supplierToEdit) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) return View(); try { var originalSupplier = (from c in _entities.SupplierSet where c.SupplierId == supplierToEdit.SupplierId select c).FirstOrDefault(); _entities.ApplyPropertyChanges(originalSupplier.EntityKey.EntitySetName, supplierToEdit); _entities.SaveChanges(); // TODO: Add update logic here return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View(); } } This is my View ... <h2>Edit</h2> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) %> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.CompanyName) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.CompanyName) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.CompanyName) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.ContactName) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.ContactName) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.ContactName) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.ContactTitle) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.ContactTitle) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.ContactTitle) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Address) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Address) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Address) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.City) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.City) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.City) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.PostalCode) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.PostalCode) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.PostalCode) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Country) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Country) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Country) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Telephone) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Telephone) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Telephone) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Fax) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Fax) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Fax) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.HomePage) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.HomePage) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.HomePage) %> </div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Save" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } %> <div> <%= Html.ActionLink("Back to List", "Index") %> </div>

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >