I would like to know if it is best to use One controller for multiple views that load approximately the same data or use one controller for every view.
And if it is possible to use the controller like this :
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class MultiplePagesController : Controller
{
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetA()
{ ... return viewA }
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetB()
{ ... return viewB }
}
And in my serviceViewA.ts :
getA() {
return this.http.get<InterfaceA>(`${this.baseUrl}/api/multiplepages/`);
}
My serviceViewB.ts :
getB() {
return this.http.get<InterfaceB>(`${this.baseUrl}/api/multiplepages/`);
}
Since let's say the viewA returns data of books and the viewB returns data of books and computers.
I am using MVC .NET CORE
It's in fact a great idea to use one controller (and method) if it does exactly the same thing, you reduce code this way, makes it easy to maintain and modify in just one place rather than all over the project. Think of it as a container for your functions. If you have a Book controller, you put all methods related to books there, same for User, you would put all user methods there.
As for your second question, that goes against polymorphism. Your function signatures are exactly the same, how will it be distinguished? You'll need to give it a different name or accept a parameter (different from the other function or different data type).
Worth noting that you can name your function differently to return views.
For example:
public async Task<IActionResult> GetViewA(){ // ... }
public async Task<IActionResult> GetViewB(){ // ... }
You'll call those views by entering: /Controller/GetViewB as your path.
I would like to call the MainController.GetData() action from a few different URLs without a bunch of copied/pasted code. Is there a preferred way people tackle this? Seems like I might be able to do it with routing as well. I would just like to reuse the view and action since all that code would be the same if I made a version for the GetMyData() action.
**Example urls**
*/main/getdata
/other/getmydata
/diffferent/getothersdata?userid=3
public ActionResult MainController::GetData()
{
var data = GetData();
return View(collection);
}
public ActionResult OtherController::GetMyData()
{
var userId = GetCurrentUserId();
var data = GetData(userId);
return View("../main/getdata", collection);
}
Although controllers look like simple classes, their behavior inside the MVC framework is more specialized. You can't, or perhaps it's better to say you shouldn't, just call an action from one in an action for another, as if it's just any old method. Mostly, this is because controllers have context, and you have to instantiate them and set them up just right so that everything works. That's non-trivial to do inside of an action method and it's going to make your code ugly as hell.
You have two choices really. If you just want the result of the action, the best method is to utilize HttpClient and actually submit an HTTP request for it, just like any other request that would activate it.
However, based on your problem description, option two is probably more appropriate. You can create a base class and then inherit from that. For example, if you know two controllers are both going to need GetData, you can do something like:
public abstract class BaseController : Controller
{
protected IEnumerable<Data> QueryData(int? userId = null)
{
...
}
}
public class MainController : BaseController
{
public ActionResult GetData()
{
var data = QueryData();
return View(data);
}
}
public class OtherController : BaseController
{
public ActionResult GetMyData()
{
var userId = GetCurrentUserId();
var data = QueryData(userId);
return View(data);
}
}
In other words, you factor out the common functionality into something both the actions on both derived controllers can use.
This is all you needed for this scenario, but you can also implement entire actions on the base controller. For example, if you added a Foo action to BaseController, both MainController and OtherController would then responds to requests for Foo, without having to actually explicitly define that. You can then also override these actions if you need to, as well.
I wanted to provide some URL separation for my public/anonymous controllers and views from the admin/authenticated controllers and views. So I ended up using entirely Attribute Routing in order to take more control of my URLs. I wanted my public URLs to start with "~/Admin/etc." while my public URLs would not have any such prefix.
Public Controller (one of several)
[RoutePrefix("Home")]
public class HomeController : Controller
{
[Route("Index")]
public ActionResult Index()
{ //etc. }
}
Admin Controller (one of several)
[RoutePrefix("Admin/People")]
public class PeopleController : Controller
{
[Route("Index")]
public ActionResult Index()
{ //etc. }
}
This allows me to have public URLs such as:
http://myapp/home/someaction
...and admin/authenticated URLs such as:
http://myapp/admin/people/someaction
But now I want to do some dynamic stuff in the views based on whether the user is in the Admin section or the Public section of the site. How can I access this programmatically, properly?
I know I could do something like
if (Request.Url.LocalPath.StartsWith("/Admin"))
...but it feels "hacky." I know I can access the controller and action names via
HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext.RouteData.Values
...but the "admin" piece isn't reflected in there, because it's just a route prefix, not an actual controller name.
So, the basic question is, how do I programmatically determine whether the currently loaded view is under the "admin" section or not?
You just need to reflect the RoutePrefixAttribute from the Controller type, and then get its Prefix value. The Controller instance is available on the ViewContext.
This example creates a handy HTML helper that wraps all of the steps into a single call.
using System;
using System.Web.Mvc;
public static class RouteHtmlHelpers
{
public static string GetRoutePrefix(this HtmlHelper helper)
{
// Get the controller type
var controllerType = helper.ViewContext.Controller.GetType();
// Get the RoutePrefix Attribute
var routePrefixAttribute = (RoutePrefixAttribute)Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(
controllerType, typeof(RoutePrefixAttribute));
// Return the prefix that is defined
return routePrefixAttribute.Prefix;
}
}
Then in your view, you just need to call the extension method to get the value of the RoutePrefixAttribute.
#Html.GetRoutePrefix() // Returns "Admin/People"
My project structure is like:
Controllers/ArticlesController.cs
Controllers/CommentsController.cs
Views/Articles/Read.aspx
Read.aspx takes a parameter say "output", which is the details of the article by id and its comments, passed from ArticlesController.cs
Now I want to write then read the comment:: write() & Read() funct in CommentsController.cs
For reading the article with its comments, I want to call Views/Articles/Read.aspx from CommentsController.cs by passing output parameter from CommentsController.cs
How can I do this?
UPDATE
Code Here:
public class CommentsController : AppController
{
public ActionResult write()
{
//some code
commentRepository.Add(comment);
commentRepository.Save();
//works fine till here, Data saved in db
return RedirectToAction("Read", new { article = comment.article_id });
}
public ActionResult Read(int article)
{
ArticleRepository ar = new ArticleRepository();
var output = ar.Find(article);
//Now I want to redirect to Articles/Read.aspx with output parameter.
return View("Articles/Read", new { article = comment.article_id });
}
}
public class ArticlesController : AppController
{
public ActionResult Read(int article)
{
var output = articleRepository.Find(article);
//This Displays article data in Articles/Read.aspx
return View(output);
}
}
To directly answer your question if you want to return a view that belongs to another controller you simply have to specify the name of the view and its folder name.
public class CommentsController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View("../Articles/Index", model );
}
}
and
public class ArticlesController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View();
}
}
Also, you're talking about using a read and write method from one controller in another. I think you should directly access those methods through a model rather than calling into another controller as the other controller probably returns html.
You can move you read.aspx view to Shared folder. It is standard way in such circumstances
I'm not really sure if I got your question right. Maybe something like
public class CommentsController : Controller
{
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult WriteComment(CommentModel comment)
{
// Do the basic model validation and other stuff
try
{
if (ModelState.IsValid )
{
// Insert the model to database like:
db.Comments.Add(comment);
db.SaveChanges();
// Pass the comment's article id to the read action
return RedirectToAction("Read", "Articles", new {id = comment.ArticleID});
}
}
catch ( Exception e )
{
throw e;
}
// Something went wrong
return View(comment);
}
}
public class ArticlesController : Controller
{
// id is the id of the article
public ActionResult Read(int id)
{
// Get the article from database by id
var model = db.Articles.Find(id);
// Return the view
return View(model);
}
}
It is explained pretty well here: Display a view from another controller in ASP.NET MVC
To quote #Womp:
By default, ASP.NET MVC checks first in \Views\[Controller_Dir]\,
but after that, if it doesn't find the view, it checks in \Views\Shared.
ASP MVC's idea is "convention over configuration" which means moving the view to the shared folder is the way to go in such cases.
I'm curious to see if you can overload controller methods in ASP.NET MVC. Whenever I try, I get the error below. The two methods accept different arguments. Is this something that cannot be done?
The current request for action 'MyMethod' on controller type 'MyController' is ambiguous between the following action methods:
You can use the attribute if you want your code to do overloading.
[ActionName("MyOverloadedName")]
But, you'll have to use a different action name for the same http method (as others have said). So it's just semantics at that point. Would you rather have the name in your code or your attribute?
Phil has an article related to this: http://haacked.com/archive/2008/08/29/how-a-method-becomes-an-action.aspx
Yes. I've been able to do this by setting the HttpGet/HttpPost (or equivalent AcceptVerbs attribute) for each controller method to something distinct, i.e., HttpGet or HttpPost, but not both. That way it can tell based on the type of request which method to use.
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Show()
{
...
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Show( string userName )
{
...
}
One suggestion I have is that, for a case like this, would be to have a private implementation that both of your public Action methods rely on to avoid duplicating code.
Here's something else you could do... you want a method that is able to have a parameter and not.
Why not try this...
public ActionResult Show( string username = null )
{
...
}
This has worked for me... and in this one method, you can actually test to see if you have the incoming parameter.
Updated to remove the invalid nullable syntax on string and use a default parameter value.
No,No and No. Go and try the controller code below where we have the "LoadCustomer" overloaded.
public class CustomerController : Controller
{
//
// GET: /Customer/
public ActionResult LoadCustomer()
{
return Content("LoadCustomer");
}
public ActionResult LoadCustomer(string str)
{
return Content("LoadCustomer with a string");
}
}
If you try to invoke the "LoadCustomer" action you will get error as shown in the below figure.
Polymorphism is a part of C# programming while HTTP is a protocol. HTTP does not understand polymorphism. HTTP works on the concept's or URL and URL can only have unique name's. So HTTP does not implement polymorphism.
In order to fix the same we need to use "ActionName" attribute.
public class CustomerController : Controller
{
//
// GET: /Customer/
public ActionResult LoadCustomer()
{
return Content("LoadCustomer");
}
[ActionName("LoadCustomerbyName")]
public ActionResult LoadCustomer(string str)
{
return Content("LoadCustomer with a string");
}
}
So now if you make a call to URL "Customer/LoadCustomer" the "LoadCustomer" action will be invoked and with URL structure "Customer/LoadCustomerByName" the "LoadCustomer(string str)" will be invoked.
The above answer i have taken from this codeproject article --> MVC Action overloading
To overcome this problem you can write an ActionMethodSelectorAttribute that examines the MethodInfo for each action and compares it to the posted Form values and then rejects any method for which the form values don't match (excluding the button name, of course).
Here's an example:- http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/asp-net-mvc-ambiguous-match/
BUT, this isn't a good idea.
As far as I know you can only have the same method when using different http methods.
i.e.
[AcceptVerbs("GET")]
public ActionResult MyAction()
{
}
[AcceptVerbs("POST")]
public ActionResult MyAction(FormResult fm)
{
}
I have achieved this with the help of Attribute Routing in MVC5. Admittedly I am new to MVC coming from a decade of web development using WebForms, but the following has worked for me. Unlike the accepted answer this allows all the overloaded actions to be rendered by the same view file.
First enable Attribute Routing in App_Start/RouteConfig.cs.
public class RouteConfig
{
public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes)
{
routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}");
routes.MapMvcAttributeRoutes();
routes.MapRoute(
name: "Default",
url: "{controller}/{action}/{id}",
defaults: new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }
);
}
}
Optionally decorate your controller class with a default route prefix.
[RoutePrefix("Returns")]
public class ReturnsController : BaseController
{
//.......
Then decorate your controller actions that overload each other with a common route and parameters to suit. Using type constrained parameters you can use the same URI format with IDs of different types.
[HttpGet]
// Returns
public ActionResult Index()
{
//.....
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("View")]
// Returns/View
public ActionResult View()
{
// I wouldn't really do this but it proves the concept.
int id = 7026;
return View(id);
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("View/{id:int}")]
// Returns/View/7003
public ActionResult View(int id)
{
//.....
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("View/{id:Guid}")]
// Returns/View/99300046-0ba4-47db-81bf-ba6e3ac3cf01
public ActionResult View(Guid id)
{
//.....
}
Hope this helps and is not leading somebody down the wrong path. :-)
You could use a single ActionResult to deal with both Post and Get:
public ActionResult Example() {
if (Request.HttpMethod.ToUpperInvariant() == "GET") {
// GET
}
else if (Request.HttpMethod.ToUpperInvariant() == "POST") {
// Post
}
}
Useful if your Get and Post methods have matching signatures.
I've just come across this question and, even though it's quite old now, it's still very relevant. Ironically, the one correct comment in this thread was posted by a self-confessed beginner in MVC when he wrote the post. Even the ASP.NET docs are not entirely correct. I have a large project and I successfully overload action methods.
If one understands routing, beyond the simple {controller}/{action}/{id} default route pattern, it might be obvious that controller actions can be mapped using any unique pattern. Someone here talked about polymorphism and said: "HTTP does not understand polymorphism", but routing has nothing to do with HTTP. It is, simply put, a mechanism for string pattern matching.
The best way to make this work is to use the routing attributes, for example:
[RoutePrefix("cars/{country:length(3)}")]
public class CarHireController
{
[Route("{location}/{page:int=1}", Name = "CarHireLocation")]
public ActionResult Index(string country, string location, int page)
{
return Index(country, location, null, page);
}
[Route("{location}/{subLocation}/{page:int=1}", Name = "CarHireSubLocation")]
public ActionResult Index(string country, string location, string subLocation, int page)
{
//The main work goes here
}
}
These actions will take care of urls like /cars/usa/new-york and /cars/usa/texas/dallas, which will map to the first and second Index actions respectively.
Examining this example controller it's evident that it goes beyond the default route pattern mentioned above. The default works well if your url structure exactly matches your code naming conventions, but this is not always the case. Code should be descriptive of the domain, but urls often need to go further because their content should be based on other criteria, such as SEO requirements.
The benefit of the default routing pattern is that it automatically creates unique routes. This is enforced by the compiler since urls will match unique controller types and members. Rolling your own route patterns will require careful thought to ensure uniqueness and that they work.
Important note The one drawback is that using routing to generate urls for overloaded actions does not work when based on an action name, e.g., when using UrlHelper.Action. But it does work if one uses named routes, e.g., UrlHelper.RouteUrl. And using named routes is, according to well respected sources, the way to go anyhow (http://haacked.com/archive/2010/11/21/named-routes-to-the-rescue.aspx/).
Good luck!
You can use [ActionName("NewActionName")] to use the same method with a different name:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
public ActionResult GetEmpName()
{
return Content("This is the test Message");
}
[ActionName("GetEmpWithCode")]
public ActionResult GetEmpName(string EmpCode)
{
return Content("This is the test Messagewith Overloaded");
}
}
I needed an overload for:
public ActionResult Index(string i);
public ActionResult Index(int groupId, int itemId);
There were few enough arguments where I ended up doing this:
public ActionResult Index(string i, int? groupId, int? itemId)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrWhitespace(i))
{
// parse i for the id
}
else if (groupId.HasValue && itemId.HasValue)
{
// use groupId and itemId for the id
}
}
It's not a perfect solution, especially if you have a lot of arguments, but it works well for me.
I have faced same issue in my application too. Without Modifiyig any Method information, I have provided [ActionName("SomeMeaningfulName")] on Action head. issue resolved
[ActionName("_EmployeeDetailsByModel")]
public PartialViewResult _EmployeeDetails(Employee model)
{
// Some Operation
return PartialView(model);
}
}
[ActionName("_EmployeeDetailsByModelWithPagination")]
public PartialViewResult _EmployeeDetails(Employee model,int Page,int PageSize)
{
// Some Operation
return PartialView(model);
}
Create the base method as virtual
public virtual ActionResult Index()
Create the overridden method as override
public override ActionResult Index()
Edit: This obviously applies only if the override method is in a derived class which appears not to have been the OP's intention.
I like this answer posted in another thread
This is mainly used if you inherit from another controller and want to override an acction from the base controller
ASP.NET MVC - Overriding an action with differing parameters
There is only one public signature allowed for each controller method. If you try to overload it, it will compile, but you're getting the run-time error you've experienced.
If you're not willing to use different verbs (like the [HttpGet] and [HttpPost] attributes) to differentiate overloaded methods (which will work), or change the routing, then what remains is that you can either provide another method with a different name, or you can dispatch inside of the existing method. Here's how I did it:
I once came into a situation where I had to maintain backwards compatibility. The original method expected two parameters, but the new one had only one. Overloading the way I expected did not work because MVC didn't find the entry point any more.
To solve that, I did the following:
Changed the 2 overloaded action methods from public to private
Created one new public method which contained "just" 2 string parameters. That one acted as a dispatcher, i.e.:
public ActionResult DoSomething(string param1, string param2)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(param2))
{
return DoSomething(ProductName: param1);
}
else
{
int oldId = int.Parse(param1);
return DoSomething(OldParam: param1, OldId: oldId);
}
}
private ActionResult DoSomething(string OldParam, int OldId)
{
// some code here
return Json(result);
}
private ActionResult DoSomething(string ProductName)
{
// some code here
return Json(result);
}
Of course, this is a hack and should be refactored later. But for the time being, it worked for me.
You can also create a dispatcher like:
public ActionResult DoSomething(string action, string param1, string param2)
{
switch (action)
{
case "update":
return UpdateAction(param1, param2);
case "remove":
return DeleteAction(param1);
}
}
You can see, that UpdateAction needs 2 parameters, while DeleteAction just needs one.
Sorry for the delay. I was with the same problem and I found a link with good answers, could that will help new guys
All credits for BinaryIntellect web site and the authors
Basically, there are four situations: using differents verbs, using routing, overload marking with [NoAction] attribute and change the action attribute name with [ActionName]
So, depends that's your requiriments and your situation.
Howsoever, follow the link:
Link:
http://www.binaryintellect.net/articles/8f9d9a8f-7abf-4df6-be8a-9895882ab562.aspx
This answer for those who struggling with the same issue. You can
implement your own custom filter based on
ActionMethodSelectorAttribute. Here I found the best solution
for solving your question. Works fine on .net 5 project.
If you try to implement the same logic as was in web api controllers then use Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.WebApiCompatShim. This nuget package provides compatibility in ASP.NET Core MVC with ASP.NET Web API 2 to simplify migration of existing Web API implementations. Please check this answer but consider that
starting with ASP.NET Core 3.0, the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.WebApiCompatShim package is no longer available.
If this is an attempt to use one GET action for several views that POST to several actions with different models, then try add a GET action for each POST action that redirects to the first GET to prevent 404 on refresh.
Long shot but common scenario.