Updating Controller and Views after adding column to Model

Updating Controller and Views after adding column to Model - c#

I am new to Entity framework, so this is probably a stupid question.
I have added a new field to a Model class. I have created the migration and updated the database and this all works as expected. The new column has appeared in the SQL table.
I have manually modified the Create/Details Views (I'm guessing this isn't automatic) to include the new column. The new column is called "Level".
However, my Controller class doesn't seem to have picked up the changes. It doesn't insert the value when creating a new row. There are references to column names in the Controller class, but the new column name isn't there. E.g.
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([Bind("Id,Name")] Course course)
Is there any way to "refresh" the Controller to pick up the changes? Or will I have to manually edit the lines where the columns are named and add the new column?

If your view has a control bound to this new Level field and you want to pass it to the controller to write, then you will need to add it to the Bind attribute:
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([Bind("Id,Name,Level")] Course course)
While it might look like when you pass a Model to a view, and have a Form in the view that calls an action on the Controller passing that Model back, this isn't actually what happens. ASP.Net MVC is merely formatting the code in that way. Honestly this is a bit of a bad practice when using EF Entities as it trips up quite a few developers expecting that Entity references are being passed between server and view. It leads to confusing problems and is also an open door to data tampering when used incorrectly.
When the controller passes the Model to the View(), it is passing that Model to the View Renderer to compose the HTML view that will be sent to the browser. So if you're passing a Course entity, that entity does not travel to the client, it is consumed by the Server to build the HTML.
When your Form goes to call the controller, it will automatically append any bound fields that it knows about. This will include any bound entry controls, and if there are any details that don't have edit controls bound to them, you need to use bound Hidden controls to ensure that the MVC Javascript knows to pick those up too.
If you use a Bind attribute, this tells MVC which properties coming back from a Form submit or Ajax call that you actually want to accept. If "Level" isn't in there, the value will be ignored even if passed. The View does not pass an actual entity, it will be a set of named parameters that MVC has some magic smarts to convert into a Model object based on convention.
The Action could be written as either:
public async Task<IActionResult> Create([Bind("Id,Name,Level")] Course course)
or
public async Task<IActionResult> Create(int id, string name, string level)
where in the second case you'd need to handle the creation and population of your Course entity using the values passed in.

Related

Keep data in ViewModel when validating in MVC5

In my asp.NET MVC5 app I have a controller that supplies a view which is strongly typed vs a viewmodel. This viewmodel has a SelectList property (among others), and the controller supplies the data on creation from the database:
public ActionResult Simulation() {
var SimVM = new SimulationVM(
StrategyRepository.GetStrategies().Select(n => n.Name),
);
return View(SimVM);
}
The SelectList is then used as data source for a DropDown choice in a form. The HttpPost method does some datavalidation, i.e.,
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Simulation(SimulationVM _simVM) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
// ...
}
else return View(_simVM);
}
So with the code above, the DropDown data is empty, since on posting, the SimulationVM object is created new. The usual trick of using Html.HiddenFor does not work on collections.
Of course, I could go back and fetch the data again from the database, but that seems to be bad, a database fetch for such a simple thing as a validation where I know the data hasn't changed.
What is the best (or for the sake of not being subjective: any) way to keep some data in the ViewModel (or repopulate it efficiently)?

If it is a requrement that you not go back to the database and you're 100% confident that the data will not change (i.e. this is a list of states as opposed to a list of orders or something) then you can add the collection to a session variable. Here's a link to a decent article:
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/How-to-create-and-access-447ada98
That being said, I usually just go to the database and get the data again. If doing so for a second time is causing huge performance issues, it is most likely causing performance issues the first time and you should treat the problem rather than the symptom.

How should I be binding my business models to my views?

I've come across an interesting question during my development. Right now, I use a database-agnostic unit of work layer to abstract the access of data from the actual database dependencies in my ASP MVC 4 web application.
Each individual database project which implements the unit of work interfaces are aware of my business models (models that go directly to/from the database). I'm not too sure how I feel about this approach, but that's not the question I am going to ask.
Should I be using a solution like AutoMapper to convert my business models to/from domain models - models that are passed to the view and used for any work that shouldn't have access to database fields (i.e., IDs)?
For example, consider inside my BusinessModels project, I have the following classes
BusinessModels
/UserAccounts/
User.cs
- ID
- Username
- HashedPassword
- Salt
UserSettings.cs
- IsSubscribedToNewsletter
- AllowDirectEmails
Would it make any sense to bind these User, and UserSettings models into a single model using AutoMapper like so
MyProject
/DomainModels/
User.cs
- Username
- HashedPassword
- Salt
- IsSubscribedToNewsletter
- AllowDirectEmails
for the purpose of views?
This question also extends to non-MVC projects but I feel seeing as I am working on an MVC project it would make more sense to ask it in that tag.
TLDR is there any point in mapping business models/entities to view models or does that provide an unnecessary layer of abstraction? And if so, would the Repositories contain business models, or view models (which map automatically to business models under-the-hood)?

You can use view models for two different things:
rendering a new view (GET action), passing the view model object as the model for the view
receiving data back from the view, in a Post Action (POST action), using the view model as parameter
(I know, the second is arguable. But it's not strange to use the view models for this)
The model for the GET action needs all the properties neccessary to render the View:
the values of the entity you're showing/editing
extra values needed to render the view (for example SelectLists for drop down lists)
Suppose that you have a User which can belong to one UserGroup.
In this case, if you want to edit the user, the model needs:
the User data
a list of UserGroups
I'd use a model like this:
public class EditUserModel
{
public User User {get;set;}
public SelectList UserGroups {get;set;}
}
As you can see, I directly add the User as a property. But I don't add the list of categories as a property, because I don't need the whole list of categories, with all their properties in the view. Besides, if you unit test the controller you can verify that the SelectList is as expected (that couldn't be done if you created the User Groups list in the view)
But, what if you don't need all the properties of the user in the View? Is it worth removing the User property, and add individual properties for Name, Email, JoinedData, Active... ? I think the anser is NO. Imagine you add/remove or rename some of the User entity properties. If you had individual properties in the view model, you'd have to change them as well, before updating the View. And, if you rely on automatic mapping (auto mapper, value injecter) you would't even realized if you make some mistake.
I also said that the view model can be used for posting back data to the controller. So you could do this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(EditUserModel userModel)
If you do so, the model binder will populate the userModel with the values in the form controls. So you'lll get back a half empty model. In this case, the UserGroups list would be null, and, depending on how many of the User's properties you edit, the User could also have many null/non-initialized properties.
To avoid making errors, in some occasions is advisable to create a different model (and probably auxiliary classes) to make it clear what is expected to be posted to the model.
For example, if you have an action to show the whole user data, but which only allows to change its password, you could create a class with two properties: Password, and PasswordConfirmation.
In this case, the view model for the POST could only have the Password and PasswordConfirmation. And derive a model for the GET which has this inherited properties, and also the list of User Groups and the User.
Why inheriting and not using independent classes? Simply beacuse when you use something like Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.User.Name), the Model Binder will be able to set the Name property of the User property, only if the parameter for the post action has the same structure. I.e. if the view model for the get has this structure:
public ChangePasswordModel
{
public string Password {get;set;}
public string PasswordConfirmation {get;set;}
// extra properties, like the list of user groups, the user data...
}
And the model for the post has this structure:
public PostedChanegPasswordModel
{
public User User {get;set;}
}
The content of the input rendered by Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.EditedUser.Name) won't be bound to the User.Name of the PostedEditViewModel.
But if you make this:
public EditUserModel : PostedEditUserModel
{
// extra properties, like the list of user groups
}
the data will be bound without any problem.
In general you have to be careful with the models you use for posting and getting. And I recommend using as many different view models as neccesary.
When to use automatic property mapping to completely new view and different models?
You must have a very strong reason to have different view models. This could be a result of starting the application from outside in (i.e. design first) or because a team is developing the UI before or while the business logie is being implemented.
In this case you can find that the classes for the view models, and the views themselves are already defined, and are quite similart to your entities, but not exactly equal. This is one case when I think it can be good to use mappers.
The other reason to use different classes would be to decouple the interface from the logic. But this usually only happens in the previous case.

Regards viewmodels I treat them like a summary of the data you wish to work with.
So taking from your example, your viewmodel would contain data from both the User and UserSettings classes. Let's say you had a view named UserData.cshtml then I would code it up like so:
public class UserDataViewModel
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public bool AllowDirectEmails { get; set; }
// etc ...
}
public ActionResult UserData()
{
var viewModel = new UserDataViewModel();
viewModel.UserName = "Whatever";
viewModel.AllowDirectEmails = false;
// Or however you get the data for the user.....
return View(viewModel)
}
Hopefully you get the idea. So you are on the right track with merging information from externals classes into one viewmodel class. Bascially tie everything together in the viewmodel class.
I name the viewmodel class the same as the view that it's going to be used for. This can help documentation, as well as make it easier for devs new to the code to follow.

ASP.Net MVC - Need to pass part of the View Model into POST Method

So, I have a form that has a corresponding domain class. My page's view model however, contains that domain class and other information such as drop down list data sources. In addition, my view model has no parameterless contructor.
Now, when I try to do a post method (i.e., save the data), the view model is what's being passed. Is there a way for me to just pass the domain object as that's what I only care about?
If not, how do you guys structure your page to rectify this?
Thanks.

Just make sure that the fields that represent the model that you are interested in are the only ones wrapped inside the form. As long as the names are correct and all required fields are there, then you're good. Also, make sure that the actionmethod parameter is of the same type as the model that you are after, rather than of the viewmodel type!!

Use as view model the model you need to pass when submit. Pass the rest of the information to the view using ViewData.

MVC 3 - How is this ever going to work?

I have made this post over a year ago, and I think it makes sense to update it as it's getting quite a few views.
I'm either missing something out or Microsoft has really messed up MVC. I worked on Java MVC projects and they were clean and simple. This is however a complete mess IMO. Examples online such as NerdDinner and projects discussed on ASP.Net are too basic, hence why they "simply" work. Excuse if this sounds negative, but this is my experience so far.
I have a repository and a service that speaks to the repository. Controllers call service.
My data layer is NOT persistence independent, as the classes were generated by SQL metal. Because of this I have a lot of unnecessary functionality. Ideally I'd like to have POCO, but I didn't find a good way to achieve this yet.
*Update: Of course Microsoft hasn't messed anything up - I did. I didn't fully understand the tools that were at my disposal. The major flaw in what I have done, was that I have chosen a wrong technology for persisting my entities. LINQ to SQL works well in stateful applications as the data context can be easily tracked. However, this is not a case in stateless context. What would be the right choice? Entity Framework code first or code only work pretty well, but what's more importantly, is that it shouldn't matter. MVC, or front end applications must should not aware of how data is persisted. *
When creating entites I can use object binding:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Customer c)
{
// Persistance logic and return view
}
This works great, MVC does some binding behind the scene and everything is "jolly good".
It wasn't "Jolly Good". Customer was a domain model, and what was worse, it was dependent on persistence medium, because it was generated by SQL metal. What I would do now, is design my domain model, which would be independent of data storage or presentation layers. I would then create view model from my domain model and use that instead.
As soon as I'd like to do some more complex, e.g. - save Order which is linked to the customer everything seems to break:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Order o)
{
// Persistance logic and return view
}
To persist an order I need Customer or at least CustomerId. CustomerId was present in the view, but by the time it has got to Create method, it has lost CustomerId. I don't fancy sitting around debugging MVC code as I won't be able to change it in a hosting envrionment either way.
Ok, a bit of moaning here, sorry. What I would do now, is create a view model called NewOrder, or SaveOrder, or EditOrder depending on what I'm trying to achieve. This view model would contain all the properties that I'm interested in. Out-of-the-box auto binding, as the name implies, will bind submitted values and nothing will be lost. If I want custom behaviour, then I can implement my own "binding" and it will do the job.
Alternative is to use FormCollection:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(FormCollection collection)
{
// Here I use the "magic" UpdateModel method which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, at least for LINQ Entities.
}
This is used in books and tutorials, but I don't see a point in a method which has an alternative: TryUpdateModel - if this crashes or model is invalid, it attempts to update it either way. How can you be certain that this is going to work?
Autobinding with view models will work the most of the time. If it doesn't, then you can override it. How do you know it will always work? You unit test it and you sleep well.
Another approach that I have tried is using ViewModel - wrapper objects with validation rules. This sounds like a good idea, except that I don't want to add annotations to Entity classes. This approach is great for displaying the data, but what do you do when it comes to writing data?
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(CustomViewWrapper submittedObject)
{
// Here I'd have to manually iterate through fields in submittedObject, map it to my Entities, and then, eventually, submit it to the service/repository.
}
** View model is a good way forward. There would have to be some mapping code from view model to the domain model, which can then be passed to the relevant service. This is not a correct way, but it's one way of doing it. Auto mapping tools are you best friends and you should find the one that suits your requirements, otherwise you'll be writing tons of boilerplate code.**
Am I missing something out or is this the way Microsoft MVC3 should work? I don't see how this is simplifying things, especiialy in comparisson to Java MVC.
I'm sorry if this sounds negative, but this has been my experience so far. I appreciate the fact that the framework is constantly being improved, methods like UpdateModel get introduced, but where is the documentation? Maybe it's time to stop and think for a little bit? I prefer my code to be consistent throughout, but with what I have seen so far, I have no confidence whatsoever that this is a right way forward.
I love the framework. There is so much to learn and it's not a lot more exciting then it has ever been. Should probably make another post regarding web forms. I hope this is helpful.

1) For the case of saving an order, and not having CustomerId present. If Order has a CustomerId property on it, and you have a stongly typed view, then you can persist this back to your controller action by adding
#Html.HiddenFor(model => model.CustomerId)
Doing this will have the default model binder populate things for you.
2) With respect to using a view model, I would recommend that approach. If you utilize something like AutoMapper you can take some of the pain out of redundant mapping scenarios. If you use something like Fluent Validation then you can separate validation concerns nicely.
Here's a good link on a general ASP.NET MVC implementation approach.

I don't think your issue is with asp.net MVC but with all the pieces You Choose to use together.
You want it raw and simple?
Use POCOs all around, and implement the repository where you need it.
I haven't used Java MVC, but it'd make the whole question look less like a rant if you include how you solved the particular problem in there.
Let's clear some misconceptions or maybe miscommunication:
You can pass complex objects through a post to the view. But you only want to do so if it makes sense, see next bullet
The sample you picked there rings some alarms. Accepting Customer data or CustomerID for an order and not checking authorization can be a Big security hole. The same could be said for an Order depending on what you are accepting/allowing. This is a Huge case for the use of ViewModels, regardless of POCOs, LINQ, Asp.net MVC or Java MVC.
You can pass simple values not being showed through a post to the view. It's done with hidden fields (which asp.net MVC supports very simply to use the model value), and in some scenarios it generates the hidden fields for you.
You are in no way forced to use linq2sql with Asp.net MVC. If you find it lacking for how you intend to use it, move away from it. Note I love linq2sql, but how it is tied to your view of what you can do with asp.net mvc is weird.
" I worked on Java MVC projects and they were clean and simple". Working on a project is not the same as designing the project yourself. Design skills does affect what you get out of anything. Not saying is your case, but just wanted to point that out given the lack of specifics on what you're missing from Java MVC.
"My data layer is NOT persistence independent, as the classes were generated by SQL metal. Because of this I have a lot of unnecessary functionality. Ideally I'd like to have POCO, but I didn't find a good way to achieve this yet". You picked the wrong technology, linq2sql is Not meant to fit that requirement. It haven't been a problem in the projects I've used it, but everything is designed in such a way that way less tied to its specifics than you seem to be. That said, just move to something else. btw, You should have shared what you used with Java MVC.
"CustomerId was present in the view, but by the time it has got to Create method, it has lost CustomerId." If the property is in Order, You can bet your code has the bug. Now, that'd have been a totally different Real question, why it isn't using the CustomerId / such question would come with: your Customer class, the View, what you are passing to the View ... answers would include, but not be limited to: inspect the HTML source in the browser to see what value you are really posting with the source (alternatively use fiddler to see the same), make sure that CustomerId really has the value when you pass it to the View.
You said: ""magic" UpdateModel method which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't". It's not magic, you can see what it does and certainly find information on it. Something is off in the information you are posting, my bet is non optional fields or wrong values for information that's parsed ... views support adding validations for that. Without the validations, this can be lacking.
You said in a comment: "After UpdateModel is called, i can't explicitly set the CustomerId, I'll have to retrieve a customer object and then assign it to the order, which seems like an overhead as all that I need is CustomerId" ... you are accepting a CustomerId that is user input (even if it is a hidden field), you really want to Validate that input. Additionally you are contradicting yourself, you claim to just need CustomerId, but then you say you need the full Customer Object related to the order bound. Which is it, if you are only binding the CustomerId, you still need to go get that Customer and assign it to the property. There is no magic besides the scenes ...
Also in a comment: "Update model is something I'm avoiding completely now as I don't know how it will behave with LINQ entities. In the view model class I have created constructor that converts LINQ entity to my view model. This decreased amount of code in controller, but still doesn't feel right". Reason to use ViewModel (or EditModel) is not because it is linq2sql ... it is because, among many other reasons, you are exposing a model that allows to manipulate way beyond what you actually want to allow the user to modify. Exposing the raw model, if it has fields the user shouldn't be allowed to modify, is the real issue.

If your view is correctly defined then you can easily do this >
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Order o, int CustomerId)
{
//you got the id, life back to jolly good (hopefully)
// Persistance logic and return view
}
EDIT:
as attadieni mentioned, by correct view I meant you have something like this inside the form tag >
#Html.HiddenFor(model => model.CustomerId)
ASP.NET MVC will automatically bind to the respective parameters.

I must be missing the problem.
You have a controller Order with an Action of Create just like you said:
public class OrderController()
{
[HttpGet]
public ViewResult Create()
{
var vm = new OrderCreateViewModel {
Customers = _customersService.All(),
//An option, not the only solution; for simplicities sake
CustomerId = *some value which you might already know*;
//If you know it set it, if you don't use another scheme.
}
return View(vm);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(OrderCreateViewModel model)
{
// Persistance logic and return view
}
}
The Create action posts back a view model of type OrderCreateViewModel that looks like such.
public class OrderCreateViewModel
{
// a whole bunch of order properties....
public Cart OrderItems { get; set; }
public int CustomerId { get; set; }
// Different options
public List<Customer> Customers { get; set; } // An option
public string CustomerName { get; set; } // An option to use as a client side search
}
Your view has a dropdown list of customers which you could add as a property to the viewmodel or a textbox which you wire up to to searching on the server side via JQuery where you could set a hidden field of CustomerId when a match is made, however you decide to do it. And if you already know the customerId ahead of time (which some of the other posts seems to imply) then just set it in the viewmodel and bypass all the above.
You have all of your order data. You have the customer Id of the customer attached to this order. You're good to go.
"To persist an order I need Customer or at least CustomerId. CustomerId was present in the view, but by the time it has got to Create method, it has lost CustomerId."
What? Why? If CustomerId was in the view, set, and posted back, it's in the model for the HttpPost Create method which is exactly where you need it. What do you mean it's being lost?
The ViewModel gets mapped to a Model object of type order. As suggested, using AutoMapper is helpful...
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(OrderCreateViewModel model)
{
if(!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View(model);
}
// Persistance logic and return view
var orderToCreate = new Order();
//Build an AutoMapper map
Mapper.CreateMap<OrderCreateViewModel, Order>();
//Map View Model to object(s)
Mapper.Map(model, orderToCreate);
//Other specialized mapping and logic
_orderService.Create(orderToCreate);
//Handle outcome. return view, spit out error, etc.
}
It's not a necessity, you can map it manually, but it just makes things easier.
And you're set. If you don't want to use data annotations for validation, fine, do it in the service layer, use the fluent validation library mentioned, whatever you choose. Once you call the Create() method of your service layer with all the data, you're good to go.
Where's the disconnect? What are we missing?
ataddeini's answer is correct, I'm just trying to show a bit more code. Upvote ataddeini

If the Customer Id is already in the Order model (in this example) it should be available without extending the method signature. If you view the source on the rendered view, is the customer id correctly emitted in a hidden field within the form? Are you using the [Bind] attribute on the Order model class and inadvertently preventing the Customer Id from being populated?

I would think the Order table would include a CustomerID field, if so, the only problem is maybe you are not including any control in the view to keep that value, then is lost.
Try to follow this example.
1) GET action before sending to the View, let's say you assign the CustomerID at this point.
public ActionResult Create()
{
var o = new Order();
o.CustomerID = User.Identity.Name; // or any other wher you store the customerID
return View(o);
}
2) The View, if you don't use any control for the CustomerID, like textbox, combobox, etc, you must use a hidden field to keep the value.
#using (Html.BeginForm())
{
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.CustomerID)
<label>Requested Date:</label>
#Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.DateRequested)
...
}
3) Finally, the POST action to get and persist the order. In here, as CustomerID was kept in the hidden value, the Model Binder will automatically put all the Form values into the Order object o, then you just need to use CRUD methods and persist it.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Order o)
{
return View();
}
Can be two approaches for this, one to implicit save all Model values even if not used in the View, and the other is to keep only those values used. I think MVC is doing the right thing to follow the later, avoid unnecessary keep a lot of junk for bigger models, when the only think is, to name one, a CustomerName, somehow it can give you control on what data to keep through the whole cycle action-view-action and save memory.
For more complex scenarios, where not all fields are in the same model, you need to use ViewModels. For example for mater-detail scenarios you would create a OrderViewModel that has two properties: Order o, and IEnumerable< OrderDetail > od, but again, you will need explicit use the values in the View, or use hidden fields.
In recent releases now you can use POCO classes and Code-First that makes all cleaner and easier, You may want to try EF4 + CTP5.

if you are using services (aka; service layer, business facade), to process lets say the OrderModel, you can extract an Interface, and get your ViewModel/DTO to implement it, so that you can pass back the ViewModel/DTO to the service.
If you are using Repositories to directly manage the data (without a servie layer) in the controller, then you can do it the good old way of Loading the object from a repository and then doing an UpdateModel on it.
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(string customerCode, int customerId, Order order)
{
var cust = _customerRepository.Get(customerId);
cust.AddOrder(order);//this should carry the customerId to the order.CustomerId
}
Also, URLs might help a bit where it makes sense, I mean you can add the customer identifier in the url to create the order for.
UpdateModel should work, if your FormCollection has values for non-nullable properties and they are empty/null in the FormCollection, then UpdateModel should fail.

ASP.NET MVC Model confusion

Background
I'm learning the ropes around how to use ASP.NET MVC properly, and ran into this issue with models:
I have a model that describes a contact I can get that out of the form for creating a new contact, but say when we edit a form, I retrieve it from the repository, show the fields on the contact form and then get the contact object and send that to the model.
Problem
I have a business rule that some fields are not allowed to be edited after creation and other fields are only available after editing.
I receive a dirty object from the user (one with fields they should touch) and using the MVC Binding method (sspecifying the object in the method signature) the users inserts a non-editable field contact_dob.
Question
Should I instead retrieve the record again, overwrite only the fields I want to update and then send it to the database?
What's the best method when I don't want to retrieve the Entire object again from the database, do I just redo another EntityModel that's a lighter version of the main model and use that back and forth?
Am I going about this the wrong way? What are the best practices for limiting what users can edit?

I think you can build your model, the Contact class, and in the edit view you should allow only fields that can be edited, and hide or set as not editable the fields you don't want to be edited, then in your controller you'll get the original contact and update it with the values of the fields you allowed in the edit view like:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection formValues) {
Contact contact = repository.GetById(id);
try {
UpdateModel(contact);
repository.Save(contact);
return RedirectToAction("Details", new { id=contact.Id });
}
catch(Exception ex) {
// Do something...
}
return View(contact);
}

It sounds like the best solution would be to use a custom ViewModel. This is an object that contains all the fields that you would want the user to submit to the controller.
You will need to reload the contact object from the database - I don't think you can get around that without opening yourself up to other issues.
public ActionResult Edit(ContactViewModel viewModel)
{
var contact = repository.GetContacts().WithId(viewModel.Id);
// Update the contact with the fields from the viewModel
repository.Save(contact);
}

You should use the EXCLUDE and INCLUDE constraints in Action method. This way your model will exclude unwanted fields during model binding.
public ActionResult Create([Bind(Exclude="contact_dob")] Contact contact)
{
_db.AddToContacts(contact);
_db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}

The 'best practice' is to have validation done against your submitted model and not allow changes to certain fields. You can use JQuery / JavaScript to grey out textboxes that cannot be changed; as well as validation on the Model side to disallow changes to certain fields (by comparing them against what came from the database).
You can use Model Validation to disallow changes to certain fields. ASP.NET MVC 2 has this functionality. You don't even need to re-retrieve the object.
In the 'NerdDinner Walkthrough' (ASP.NET MVC 1.0), there's a walkthrough of Validation.

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.