I have a simple scenario using the Entity Framework in C#. I have an Entity Post:
public class Post
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
In my PostManager I have these methods:
public int AddPost(string name, string description)
{
var post = new Post() { Name = name, Description = description };
using (var db = new DbContext())
{
var res = db.Posts.Add(post);
res.Validate();
db.SaveChanges();
return res.Id;
}
}
public void UpdatePost(int postId, string newName, string newDescription)
{
using (var db = new DbContext())
{
var data = (from post in db.Posts.AsEnumerable()
where post.Id == postId
select post).FirstOrDefault();
data.Name = newName;
data.Description = newDescription;
data.Validate();
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
The method validate() refers to class:
public static class Validator
{
public static void Validate(this Post post)
{
if ( // some control)
throw new someException();
}
I call the validate method before the savechanges() but after adding the object to the context. What's the best practice to validate data in this simple scenario? It's better validate the arguments instead? What's happen to object post if the validate method throw exception after adding the object to the context?
UPDATE:
I have to throw a custom set of exception depending on data validation error.
I strongly recommend you to (if at all possible) to modify your entity so the setters are private (don't worry, EF can still set them on proxy creation), mark the default constructor as protected (EF can still do lazy loading/proxy creation), and make the only public constructors available check the arguments.
This has several benefits:
You limit the number of places where the state of an entity can be changed, leading to less duplication
You protect your class' invariants. By forcing creation of an entity to go via a constructor, you ensure that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an object of your entity to exist in an invalid or unknown state.
You get higher cohesion. By putting the constraints on data closer to the data itself, it becomes easier to understand and reason about your classes.
You code becomes self-documenting to a higher degree. One never has to wonder "is it OK if I set a negative value on this int property?" if it is impossible to even do it in the first place.
Separation of concerns. Your manager shouldn't know how to validate an entity, this just leads to high coupling. I've seen many managers grow into unmaintainable monsters because they simply do everything. Persisting, loading, validation, error handling, conversion, mapping etc. This is basically the polar opposite of SOLID OOP.
I know it is really popular nowadays to just make all "models" into stupid property bags with getters and setters and only a default constructor because (bad) ORMs have forced us to do this, but this is no longer the case, and there are so many issues with this imo.
Code example:
public class Post
{
protected Post() // this constructor is only for EF proxy creation
{
}
public Post(string name, string description)
{
if (/* validation check, inline or delegate */)
throw new ArgumentException();
Name = name;
Description = description;
}
public int Id { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public string Description { get; private set; }
}
Then your PostManager code becomes trivial:
using (var db = new DbContext())
{
var post = new Post(name, description); // possibly try-catch here
db.Posts.Add(post);
db.SaveChanges();
return post.Id;
}
If the creation/validation logic is extremely intricate this pattern lends itself very well for refactoring to a factory taking care of the creation.
I would also note that encapsulating data in entities exposing a minimal state-changing API leads to classes that are several orders of magnitude easier to test in isolation, if you care at all about that sort of thing.
As I mentioned in the comments above, you might want to check out .NET System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace.
Data Annotations (DA) allows you to specify attributes on properties to describe what values are acceptable. It's important to know that DA is completely independent of databases and ORM APIs such as Entity Framework so classes decorated with DA attributes can be used in any tier of your system whether it be the data tier; WCF; ASP.NET MVC or WPF.
In the example below, I define a Muppet class with a series of properties.
Name is required and has a max length of 50.
Scaryness takes an int but it must be in the range of {0...100}.
Email is decorated with an imaginary custom validator for validating strings that should contain an e-mail.
Example:
public class Muppet
{
[Required]
[StringLength(50)]
public string Name {get; set;}
public Color Color {get; set; }
[Range(0,100)]
public int Scaryness {get; set; }
[MyCustomEmailValidator]
public string Email {get;set; }
}
In my project I have to throw customException when i validate the data. It's possible do it using Data Annotations?
Yes you can. To validate this object at any time of your application (regardless of whether it has reached EF or not) just perform this:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
using System.Linq;
.
.
.
Post post = ... // fill it in
Validator.Validate(post);
public static class Validator
{
public static void Validate(this Post post)
{
// uses the extension method GetValidationErrors defined below
if (post.GetValidationErrors().Any())
{
throw new MyCustomException();
}
}
}
public static class ValidationHelpers
{
public static IEnumerable<ValidationResult> GetValidationErrors(this object obj)
{
var validationResults = new List<ValidationResult>();
var context = new ValidationContext(obj, null, null);
Validator.TryValidateObject(obj, context, validationResults, true);
return validationResults;
}
.
.
.
If you want to get the validation error messages you could use this method:
/// <summary>
/// Gets the validation error messages for column.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="obj">The object.</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public static string GetValidationErrorMessages(this object obj)
{
var error = "";
var errors = obj.GetValidationErrors();
var validationResults = errors as ValidationResult[] ?? errors.ToArray();
if (!validationResults.Any())
{
return error;
}
foreach (var ee in validationResults)
{
foreach (var n in ee.MemberNames)
{
error += ee + "; ";
}
}
return error;
}
The free set of steak knives is that the validation attributes will be detected once the object reaches EF where it will be validated there as well in case you forget or the object is changed since.
I think you should be working with Data Annotation as #Micky says above. Your current approach is validating manually after it has been added.
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
// Your class
public class Post
{
[Required]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required,MaxLength(50)]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required,MinLength(15),MyCustomCheck] // << Here is your custom validator
public string Description { get; set; }
}
// Your factory methods
public class MyFactory() {
public bool AddPost() {
var post = new Post() { Id = 1, Name = null, Description = "This is my test post"};
try {
using (var db = new DbContext()) {
db.Posts.Add(post);
db.SaveChanges();
return true;
}
} catch(System.Data.Entity.Validation.DbEntityValidationException e) {
Console.WriteLine("Something went wrong....");
} catch(MyCustomException e) {
Console.WriteLine(" a Custom Exception was triggered from a custom data annotation...");
}
return false;
}
}
// The custom attribute
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property | AttributeTargets.Field, AllowMultiple = false)]
sealed public class MyCustomCheckAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
if (value instanceof string) {
throw new MyCustomException("The custom exception was just triggered....")
} else {
return true;
}
}
}
// Your custom exception
public class MyCustomException : Exception() {}
See also:
DbEntityValidationException class: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.entity.validation.dbentityvalidationexception(v=vs.113).aspx
Default data annotations
http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/code-first/dataannotation-in-code-first.aspx
Building your custom data annotations (validators):
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc668224.aspx
I always use two validations:
client side - using jQuery Unobtrusive Validation in combination with Data Annotations
server side validation - and here it depends on application - validation is performed in controller actions or deeper in business logic. Nice place to do it is to override OnSave method in your context and do it there
Remember that you can write custom Data Annotation attributes which can validate whatever you need.
You can modify the code in this way:
public int AddPost(string name, string description)
{
var post = new Post() { Name = name, Description = description };
if(res.Validate())
{
using (var db = new DbContext())
{
var res = db.Posts.Add(post);
db.SaveChanges();
return res.Id;
}
}
else
return -1; //if not success
}
public static bool Validate(this Post post)
{
bool isValid=false;
//validate post and change isValid to true if success
if(isvalid)
return true;
}
else
return false;
}
After adding data to DbContext and before calling SaveChanges() you can call GetValidationErrors() method of DbContext and check its count to quiqckly check if there are any errors. You can further enumerate all of errors and get error details against each of them. I have bundled Error conversion from ICollection to string in GetValidationErrorsString() extension method.
if (db.GetValidationErrors().Count() > 0)
{
var errorString = db.GetValidationErrorsString();
}
public static string GetValidationErrorsString(this DbContext dbContext)
{
var validationErrors = dbContext.GetValidationErrors();
string errorString = string.Empty;
foreach (var error in validationErrors)
{
foreach (var innerError in error.ValidationErrors)
{
errorString += string.Format("Property: {0}, Error: {1}<br/>", innerError.PropertyName, innerError.ErrorMessage);
}
}
return errorString;
}
Related
I'm using EF(db first) and trying to add new row in table using the next code:
var user = new User();
//Some logic to fill the properties
context.Users.AddObject(user);
context.SaveChanges();
Before saving changes on EF i want to verify that all required (not null and with no default value) properties are filled. How can i get all such fields?
I've tried few ways, but can't achieve needed result. The last try was like that:
var resList = new List<PropertyInfo>();
var properties = type.GetProperties(BindingFlags.DeclaredOnly |
BindingFlags.Public |
BindingFlags.Instance).Where(p => !p.PropertyType.IsGenericType);
foreach (var propertyInfo in properties)
{
var edmScalarProperty =
propertyInfo.CustomAttributes.FirstOrDefault(
x => x.AttributeType == typeof (EdmScalarPropertyAttribute));
var isNullable = true;
if (edmScalarProperty != null)
{
var arg = edmScalarProperty.NamedArguments.FirstOrDefault(x => x.MemberName == "IsNullable");
if (arg != null)
{
isNullable = (bool) arg.TypedValue.Value;
}
}
if (!isNullable)
{
resList.Add(propertyInfo);
}
}
return resList;
Create a constructor with the required fields as parameters.
I always separate my domain objects from my EF objects (DTO objects). The domain object has only one constructor with the required fields. When I want to save these objects I convert them to DTO objects.
Have you looked at all into DataAnnotations for your model classes? Utilizing these (and using a separate object from the one EF creates for you) you can get pretty significant validation built into your models from the model level. Additionally, as L01NL pointed out, you can have your constructor take in parameters that require data.
Lots of information on Model and Validation can be found, one such example is:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd410405(v=vs.100).aspx
(look through this main section and its subsections)
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations
public class Foo
{
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
[StringLength(50),Required]
public string FooName { get; private set; }
[Required]
public int Age { get; private set; }
// etc props
public Foo(string fooName, int age)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(fooName))
throw new ArgumentException("FooName cannot be null or empty"); // note there is also a "minimum length" data annotation to avoid doing something like this, was just using this as an example.
this.Id = Guid.NewGuid();
this.FooName = fooName;
this.Age = age;
}
}
public class YourController
{
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Add(Foo foo)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
// return - validation warnings, etc
// Add information to persistence
// return successful add?
}
}
I have a class Customers. I want to put some validations on it.
e.g. CustGuidId is not Guid.Empty, CustName is NOT NULL (Required).
public class Customer
{
public int CustId;
public string CustName;
public Guid CustGuid;
public Guid[] OrderGuids;
}
I have such collection of customers. So I have ended up adding code like this, which makes it look ugly.
public class BatchError
{
public int Index;
public string ErrorCode;
public string ErrorMessage;
}
public void GenerateValidationErrors(List<Customer> customers, out List<BatchError> batchErrors)
{
int rowNum = 0;
batchErrors = new List<BatchError>(customers.Count);
foreach (var customer in customers)
{
rowNum ++;
Guid customerGuidParsed;
if(!Guid.TryParse(customer.CustGuid.ToString(), out customerGuidParsed))
{
batchErrors.Add(new BatchError { Index = rowNum, ErrorCode = "CustomerGuidcannotBeNull", ErrorMessage = "Customer guid cannot be null." });
}
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(customer.CustName))
{
batchErrors.Add(new BatchError { Index = rowNum, ErrorCode = "CustomerNamecannotBeEmpty", ErrorMessage = "Customer Name cannot be empty." });
}
}
}
Can we write separate validator classes, like GuidValidator, StringValidator.
and Create array of delegates & chain their invokes ?
(Customer c) => new GuidValidator(c.CustGuid.toString()),
(Customer c) => new StringValidator(c.CustName.toString())
But what design pattern would be best suitable for this scenario?
Is there any other way to add validations in WCF?
There are many ways to do the validation. I prefer to validate DataContract itself before any action.
It can also be done in many like :
DatamemberAttribute has many properties. One of them is
IsRequired,it controls the minOccurs attribute for the schema
element. The default value is false. You can use it like:
[DataContract(Name ="Place", Namespace ="")]
public class DataContractExample
{
[DataMember(IsRequired=true)]
public string DataMemberExample;
}
For more information refer: DataMemberAttribute Class on MSDN.
Easiest way is to validate property like:
[DataContract]
public class Customer
{
[DataMember]
public string CustName
{
get
{
return this._custName;
}
set
{
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
throw new MyValidationException();
else
this._custName=value;
}
}
}
Another way can be to use Microsoft Enterprise Library. In order to enable validation of the properties of a request message, you only need to add a [ValidationBehavior] attribute to your service interface, just next (or before) the [ServiceContract], and a [FaultContract(typeof(ValidationFault))] on the method declaration. The ValidationBehaviorAttribute and ValidationFault classes are defined in the Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Validation.Integration.WCF assembly and are part of the Validation Application Block of the Enterprise Library 4.1, more specifically, of the WCF integration module. See full implementation in detail at: http://weblogs.asp.net/ricardoperes/validation-of-wcf-requests-with-the-enterprise-library-validation-block
Finally one more solution cane be to use WCF Data Annotations from http://wcfdataannotations.codeplex.com/. Using this you can use validations like:
[DataMember]
[Required]
[StringLength(500, MinimumLength = 5)]
public string Description{ get; set; }
Choose which ever suite your requirements. Cheers.
<TL;DR>
At a minimum, I'm looking for a way to conditionally exclude certain properties on the resource from being included in the response on a per-call basis (See fields below).
Ideally, I'd like to implement a REST service with ServiceStack that supports all the major points below.
UPDATE
While I really like ServiceStack's approach in general and would prefer to use it if possible, if it isn't particularly well suited towards these ideas I'd rather not bend over backwards bastardizing it to make it work. If that's the case, can anyone point to another c# framework that might be more appropriate? I'm actively exploring other options myself, of course.
</TD;DR>
In this talk entitled Designing REST + JSON APIs, the presenter describes his strategy for Resource References (via href property on resources) in JSON. In addition to this, he describes two query parameters (fields and expand) for controlling what data is included the response of a call to a REST service. I've been trying without success to dig into the ServiceStack framework to achieve support for fields in particular but have thus far been unsuccessful. Is this currently possible in ServiceStack? Ideally the solution would be format agnostic and would therefore work across all of ServiceStack's supported output formats. I would imagine expand would follow the same strategy.
I'll describe these features here but I think the talk at the link does a better job of explaining them.
Lets say we have an Profiles resource with the following properties: givenName, surname, gender, and favColor. The Profiles resource also includes a list of social networks the user belongs to in the socialNetworks property.
href - (42:22 in video) Every resource includes a full link to it on the REST service. A call to GET /profiles/123 would return
{
"href":"https://host/profiles/123",
"givenName":"Bob",
"surname":"Smith",
"gender":"male",
"favColor":"red",
"socialNetworks": {
"href":"https://host/socialNetworkMemberships?profileId=123"
}
}
Notice that the socialNetworks property returns an object with just the href value populated. This keeps the response short and focused while also giving the end user enough information to make further requests if desired. The href property, used across the board in this manor, makes it easy (conceptually anyway) to reuse resource data structures as children of other resources.
fields - (55:44 in video) Query string parameter that instructs the server to only include the specified properties of the desired resource in the REST response.
A normal response from GET /profiles/123 would include all the properties of the resource as seen above. When the fields query param is included in the request, only the fields specified are returned. 'GET /propfiles/123?fields=surname,favColor' would return
{
"href":"https://host/profiles/123",
"surname":"Smith",
"favColor":"red"
}
expand - (45:53 in video) Query string parameter that instructs the server to flesh out the specified child resources in the result. Using our example, if you were to call GET /profiles/123?expand=socialNetworks you might receive something like
{
"href":"https://host/profiles/123",
"givenName":"Bob",
"surname":"Smith",
"gender":"male",
"favColor":"red",
"socialNetworks": {
"href":"https://host/socialNetworkMemberships?profileId=123",
"items": [
{
"href":"https://host/socialNetworkMemberships/abcde",
"siteName":"Facebook",
"profileUrl":"http://www.facebook.com/..."
},
...
]
}
}
So...in my opinion ServiceStack's best feature is that it makes sending, receiving and handling POCOs over HTTP super easy. How you set up the POCOs and what you do in between (within the 'Service') is up to you. Does SS have opinions? Yes. Do you have to agree with them? No. (But you probably should :))
I think expanding on something like below would get you close to how you want to handle your api. Probably not the best example of ServiceStack but the ServiceStack code/requirements are barely noticeable and don't get in your way (AppHost configure not shown). You could probably do something similar in other .NET Frameworks (MVC/Web API/etc) but, in my opinion, won't look as much like straight C#/.NET code as with ServiceStack.
Request classes
[Route("/Profiles/{Id}")]
public class Profiles
{
public int? Id { get; set; }
}
[Route("/SocialNetworks/{Id}")]
public class SocialNetworks
{
public int? Id { get; set; }
}
Base Response class
public class BaseResponse
{
protected virtual string hrefPath
{
get { return ""; }
}
public string Id { get; set; }
public string href { get { return hrefPath + Id; } }
}
Classes from example
public class Profile : BaseResponse
{
protected override string hrefPath { get { return "https://host/profiles/"; } }
public string GivenName { get; set; }
public string SurName { get; set; }
public string Gender { get; set; }
public string FavColor { get; set; }
public List<BaseResponse> SocialNetworks { get; set; }
}
public class SocialNetwork: BaseResponse
{
protected override string hrefPath { get { return "https://host/socialNetworkMemberships?profileId="; }}
public string SiteName { get; set; }
public string ProfileUrl { get; set; }
}
Services
public class ProfileService : Service
{
public object Get(Profiles request)
{
var testProfile = new Profile { Id= "123", GivenName = "Bob", SurName = "Smith", Gender = "Male", FavColor = "Red",
SocialNetworks = new List<BaseResponse>
{
new SocialNetwork { Id = "abcde", SiteName = "Facebook", ProfileUrl = "http://www.facebook.com/"}
}
};
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(this.Request.QueryString.Get("fields")) || !String.IsNullOrEmpty(this.Request.QueryString.Get("expand")))
return ServiceHelper.BuildResponseObject<Profile>(testProfile, this.Request.QueryString);
return testProfile;
}
}
public class SocialNetworkService : Service
{
public object Get(SocialNetworks request)
{
var testSocialNetwork = new SocialNetwork
{
Id = "abcde",
SiteName = "Facebook",
ProfileUrl = "http://www.facebook.com/"
};
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(this.Request.QueryString.Get("fields")) || !String.IsNullOrEmpty(this.Request.QueryString.Get("expand")))
return ServiceHelper.BuildResponseObject<SocialNetwork>(testSocialNetwork, this.Request.QueryString);
return testSocialNetwork;
}
}
Reflection Helper Class
public static class ServiceHelper
{
public static object BuildResponseObject<T>(T typedObject, NameValueCollection queryString) where T: BaseResponse
{
var newObject = new ExpandoObject() as IDictionary<string, object>;
newObject.Add("href", typedObject.href);
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(queryString.Get("fields")))
{
foreach (var propertyName in queryString.Get("fields").Split(',').ToList())
{
//could check for 'socialNetwork' and exclude if you wanted
newObject.Add(propertyName, typedObject.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName, BindingFlags.IgnoreCase | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).GetValue(typedObject, null));
}
}
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(queryString.Get("expand")))
{
foreach (var propertyName in queryString.Get("expand").Split(',').ToList())
{
newObject.Add(propertyName, typedObject.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName, BindingFlags.IgnoreCase | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).GetValue(typedObject, null));
}
}
return newObject;
}
}
Usually you can control the serialization of your DTOs by setting the DataMember attributes. With those attributes you can control if the property should have defaults or not.
Meaning if you simply do not define the property of the object you want to return, it should not be serialized and therefore will not be shown in the resulting Json.
ServiceStack internally uses the standard DataContract...Serializer, so this should be supported
Otherwise you could also make use of dynamic objects and simply compose your object at runtime, serialize it and send it back.
Here is a very very basic example:
var seri = JsonSerializer.Create(new JsonSerializerSettings() { });
using (var textWriter = new StringWriter())
{
var writer = new JsonTextWriter(textWriter);
dynamic item = new { Id = id };
seri.Serialize(writer, item);
return textWriter.ToString();
}
I am using Domain Service to fetch data from database from Silverlight Client.
In DomainService1.cs, I have added the following:
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class Product
{
public int productID;
public string productName;
public List<Part> Parts = new List<Part>(); //Part is already present in Model designer
}
In DomainService1 class I added a new method to retrive a collection of the custom class object:
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class DomainService1 : LinqToEntitiesDomainService<HELPERDBNEWEntities1>
{
...
public List<Product> GetProductsList(...)
{
List<Product> resultProducts = new List<Product>();
...
return resultProducts;
}
}
From the silverlight client I am trying to access that method:
DomainService1 ds1 = new DomainService1();
var allproductList = ds1.GetProductsList(...);
ds1.Load<SLProduct>(allproductList).Completed += new EventHandler(Load_Completed); //Not correct usage
However it is not the correct way to call the new method. The reason I added a new class Product in DomainServices.cs is to have an efficient grouping. I cannot achieve the same using the model classes auto-generated by the entity framework.
How call I call the new method from the client?
I believe there is a similar question with an answer here:
Can a DomainService return a single custom type?
Also, here is some discussion about the overall problem of adding custom methods in a Domain Service:
http://forums.silverlight.net/t/159292.aspx/1
While I don't know what you mean by "it is not the correct way to call the new method", or if you're getting any errors, I thought maybe posting some working code might help.
My POCO
public class GraphPointWithMeta
{
[Key]
public Guid PK { get; set; }
public string SeriesName { get; set; }
public string EntityName { get; set; }
public double Amount { get; set; }
public GraphPointWithMeta(string seriesName, string entityName, double amount)
{
PK = Guid.NewGuid();
SeriesName = seriesName;
EntityName = entityName;
Amount = amount;
}
// Default ctor required.
public GraphPointWithMeta()
{
PK = Guid.NewGuid();
}
}
A method in the domain service (EnableClientAccess decorates the class)
public IEnumerable<GraphPointWithMeta> CallingActivityByCommercial()
{
List<GraphPointWithMeta> gps = new List<GraphPointWithMeta>();
// ...
return gps;
}
Called from the Silverlight client like
ctx1.Load(ctx1.CallingActivityByCommercialQuery(), CallingActivityCompleted, null);
client call back method
private void CallingActivityCompleted(LoadOperation<GraphPointWithMeta> lo)
{
// lo.Entities is an IEnumerable<GraphPointWithMeta>
}
I am not sure if your Product class is an actual entity or not. From the way it is defined, it does not appear to be an entity. My answer is assuming it is not an entity. You will need to apply the DataMemberAttribute for your Product properties, and you wouldn't load the product list - load is for Entity Queries (IQueryable on the service side). You would just invoke it like this (client side):
void GetProductList( Action<InvokeOperation<List<Product>>> callback)
{
DomainService ds1 = new DomainService();
ds1.GetProductsList(callback, null);//invoke operation call
}
And the domain service's (server side) method needs the InvokeAttribute and would look like this:
[EnableClientAccess]
public class MyDomainService
{
[Invoke]
public List<Product> GetProductList()
{
var list = new List<Product>();
...
return list;
}
}
And here is how your Product class might be defined (if it is not an entity):
public class Product
{
[DataMember]
public int productID;
[DataMember]
public string productName;
[DataMember]
public List<Part> Parts = new List<Part>(); // you might have some trouble here.
//not sure if any other attributes are needed for Parts,
//since you said this is an entity; also not sure if you
//can even have a list of entities or it needs to be an
//entity collection or what it needs to be. You might
//have to make two separate calls - one to get the products
//and then one to get the parts.
}
Like I said, i am not sure what Product inherits from... Hope this helps.
I have a strongly-typed view which has a DropDownListFor attribute on it.
Each item in the dropdown list is represented by a GUID.
What I'm after is a way to validate if a user selects an item from the dropdown list. At present i don't see anyway of doing this using Data Annotations.
Is there anyway of achieving this using Data Annotations so client and server side validation would work.
I'm guessing i need to make a custom method to do this but was wondering if anything already existed.
Actually, you can't use Required attribute with GUIDs (without the method I mention below) because they inherit from struct, and as such their default value is actually an instance of Guid.Empty, which will satisfy the requirements of the Required attribute. Now that being said, it is possible to get what you want you just need to make your property nullable, take this for example...
public class Person
{
[Required] //Only works because the Guid is nullable
public Guid? PersonId { get; set;}
public string FirstName { get; set;}
public string LastName { get; set;}
}
By marking the GUID nullable (using the ?, or Nullable if you prefer the long way) you let it stay as null when binding against what the browser sent. In your case, just make sure the value of the default option of the dropdown uses an empty string as it's value.
EDIT: The only caveat to this method is you end up having to use something like Person.GetValueOfDefault() everywhere and potentially testing for Guid.Empty. I got tired of doing this and ended up creating my own validation attribute to help simplify validating Guids (and any other types that have default values I want to treat as invalid such as int, DateTime, etc). However I don't have client side validation to go along with this yet, so validation only happens on the server. This can be combined with [Required] (designed to not duplicate functionality of [Required]) if you're ok with using nullable types. This would mean you still have to use GetValueOrDefault(), but at least then you don't have to test for Guid.Empty anymore. The Gist link has some XMLDocs with examples, I left them out here for brevity. I'm currently using it with ASP.NET Core.
EDIT: Updated to fix a bug with Nullable<>, and a bug with treating null as invalid. Added supporting classes to handle client side validation. See Gist for full code.
Gist: RequireNonDefaultAttribute
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property | AttributeTargets.Field | AttributeTargets.Parameter, AllowMultiple = false)]
public class RequireNonDefaultAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public RequireNonDefaultAttribute()
: base("The {0} field requires a non-default value.")
{
}
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
if (value is null)
return true; //You can flip this if you want. I wanted leave the responsability of null to RequiredAttribute
var type = value.GetType();
return !Equals(value, Activator.CreateInstance(Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(type) ?? type));
}
}
Edited Answer
Upon re-reading your question, it sounds like you just want to know if a value is selected. If that's the case then just apply the RequiredAttribute to the Guid property and make it nullable on the model
public class GuidModel
{
[Required]
public Guid? Guid { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Guid> Guids { get; set; }
}
then in the strongly typed View (with #model GuidModel)
#Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.Guid)
#Html.DropDownListFor(
m => m.Guid,
Model.Guids.Select(g => new SelectListItem {Text = g.ToString(), Value = g.ToString()}),
"-- Select Guid --")
Add the client validation JavaScript script references for client-side validation.
The controller looks like
public class GuidsController : Controller
{
public GuidRepository GuidRepo { get; private set; }
public GuidsController(GuidRepository guidRepo)
{
GuidRepo = guidRepo;
}
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
var guid = GuidRepo.GetForId(id);
var guids - GuidRepo.All();
return View(new GuidModel { Guid = guid, Guids = guids });
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(GuidModel model)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
model.Guids = GuidRepo.All();
return View(model);
}
/* update db */
return RedirectToAction("Edit");
}
}
This will ensure that the Guid property is required for a model-bound GuidModel.
Original Answer
I don't believe that there is a ready made Data Annotation Validation attribute that is capable of doing this. I wrote a blog post about one way to achieve this; the post is using an IoC container but you could take the hard coded dependency if you're wanting to get something working.
Something like
public class ValidGuidAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
private const string DefaultErrorMessage = "'{0}' does not contain a valid guid";
public ValidGuidAttribute() : base(DefaultErrorMessage)
{
}
protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object value, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
var input = Convert.ToString(value, CultureInfo.CurrentCulture);
// let the Required attribute take care of this validation
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(input))
{
return null;
}
// get all of your guids (assume a repo is being used)
var guids = new GuidRepository().AllGuids();
Guid guid;
if (!Guid.TryParse(input, out guid))
{
// not a validstring representation of a guid
return new ValidationResult(FormatErrorMessage(validationContext.DisplayName));
}
// is the passed guid one we know about?
return guids.Any(g => g == guid) ?
new ValidationResult(FormatErrorMessage(validationContext.DisplayName)) : null;
}
}
and then on the model you send into the controller action
public class GuidModel
{
[ValidGuid]
public Guid guid { get; set; }
}
This gives you server side validation. You could write client side validation to do this as well, perhaps using RemoteAttribute but I don't see a lot of value in this case as the only people that are going to see this client side validation are people that are messing with values in the DOM; it would be of no benefit to your normal user.
I know this is an old question now, but if anyone else is interested I managed to get around this by creating an [IsNotEmpty] annotation (making the Guid nullable wasn't an option in my case).
This uses reflection to work out whether there's an implementation of Empty on the property, and if so compares it.
public class IsNotEmptyAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
public override bool IsValid(object value)
{
if (value == null) return false;
var valueType = value.GetType();
var emptyField = valueType.GetField("Empty");
if (emptyField == null) return true;
var emptyValue = emptyField.GetValue(null);
return !value.Equals(emptyValue);
}
}
Regex actually does work (if you use the right one!)
[Required]
[RegularExpression("^((?!00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000).)*$", ErrorMessage = "Cannot use default Guid")]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
Non Empty Guid Validator
prevents 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
Attribute:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]
internal class NonEmptyGuidAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object value, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
if ((value is Guid) && Guid.Empty == (Guid)value)
{
return new ValidationResult("Guid cannot be empty.");
}
return null;
}
}
Model:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
public class Material
{
[Required]
[NonEmptyGuid]
public Guid Guid { get; set; }
}
If the custom validation doesn't require a high reuse in your system (i.e. without the need for a custom validation attribute), there's another way to add custom validation to a ViewModel / Posted data model, viz by using IValidatableObject.
Each error can be bound to one or more model properties, so this approach still works with e.g. Unobtrusive validation in MVC Razor.
Here's how to check a Guid for default (C# 7.1):
public class MyModel : IValidatableObject // Implement IValidatableObject
{
[Required]
public string Name {get; set;}
public Guid SomeGuid {get; set;}
... other properties here
public IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext)
{
if (SomeGuid == default)
{
yield return new ValidationResult(
"SomeGuid must be provided",
new[] { nameof(SomeGuid) });
}
}
}
More on IValidatableObject here
You can validate the Guid if it contains default values - "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000".
if (model.Id == Guid.Empty)
{
// TODO: handle the error or do something else
}
You can create a custom validator for that.
using System;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
namespace {{Your_App_Name}}.Pages
{
public class NotEmptyGuidAttribute: ValidationAttribute
{
protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object guidValue, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
var emptyGuid = new Guid();
var guid = new Guid(guidValue.ToString());
if (guid != emptyGuid){
return null;
}
return new ValidationResult(ErrorMessage, new[] {validationContext.MemberName});
}
}
}
You can use it like this
[EmptyGuidValidator(ErrorMessage = "Role is required.")]
public Guid MyGuid{ get; set; }
This worked for me.