I am required to use the mvvm pattern. I know that the viewmodel should not care about the view from what I been reading. As a result I don't know how to solve this problem:
I have a dll that basically turns a textbox and listview into an autocomplete control:
SomeDll.InitAutocomplete<string>(TextBox1, ListView1, SomeObservableCollection);
anyways I don't know how to call that method from the viewmodel using the mvvm patter. if I reference the controls in the view I will be braking the rules.
I am new to MVVM pattern and my company requires me to follow it. what will be the most appropriate way of solving this problem?
I know I will be able to solve it by passing the entire view to the viewmodel as a constructor parameter but that will totaly break the mvvm pattern just because I need to reference two controls in the view.
What you're doing here is a pure view concern, so I'd recommend doing it in the view (i.e. the code-behind). The view knows about the VM and its observable collection, so why not let the code behind make this call?
(I'd also recommend seeing if you can get a non-code/XAML API for "SomeDll", but I have no idea how much control you might have over that)
There are two things that I'd point out here -
First, this is effectively all View-layer code. As such, using code behind isn't necessarily a violation of MVVM - you're not bridging that View->ViewModel layer by including some code in the code behind, if necessary.
That being said, this is often handled more elegantly in one of two ways -
You could wrap this functionality into a new control - effectively an AutoCompleteTextBox control. This would allow you to include the "textbox" and "listview" visual elements into the control template, and bind to the completion items within Xaml.
You could turn this into an attached property (or Blend behavior), which would allow you to "attach" it to a text box, and add that functionality (all within xaml). The items collection would then become a binding on the attached property (or behavior).
Related
I have been following this tutorial on MVVM pattern using caliburn micro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laPFq3Fhs8k
What is the difference between .xaml.cs and ViewModels/ViewModel.cs ?
I see we put our code for the shellview in ShellViewModel.cs, but when I, for example, choose an event handler for a Button, visual studio takes me to .xaml.cs and not to the ViewModels/ViewModel.
Do I have to stick to one or each file has a different role/responsibility? ( considering that I want my code to still be following MVVM pattern )
Files ending in .xaml.cs are what is called the View's "code-behind". Anything inside this file is tightly coupled with the View.
If you want to follow the MVVM pattern, you will code almost all of the interaction of the UI with your Models (example: click of a button change some data or get some data from the database) on the ViewModels (.cs files), which are independent from the Views.
The only link between the View and the ViewModel is that the ViewModel is the DataContext of the View. In other words, the View knows about the ViewModel, but that ViewModel does not know anything about the View.
Event Handlers are not generally used in a MVVM world. You need to use Commands. But that is a whole other question/answer.
The important thing to keep in mind is that MVVM comes to address, mainly, two things: the Separation of Concerns (UI vs UI Logic) and Testability of your software.
I'll start by suggesting that you learn the basics of the UI framework you're using (WPF, etc.) before adding an additional framework on top of it. I've seen that this only makes the learning curve steeper.
With that said, the .xaml.cs file is what is commonly referred to as the code behind. This is the code that "controls", so to speak, the UI. You'll note, for example, that these are all "partial" classes because there's going to be some auto-generated code when you compile that does view-specific things like bindings, etc.. The xaml.cs file should be used sparingly and only when you need to know or operate on specifics of the View itself.
With MVVM, you'll often see code behind classes that are almost completely empty, with just a constructor present. The logic in these cases is moved to a "View Model" class which provides a link between the View and the Model (take a look at this SO post for a more thorough description). You should bind to objects in the View Model, and use it as the data context for your view. It contains all the logic to define how the view effects your model.
So - applying this to event handlers... An event must live in the code-behind, because you can't explicitly bind to one in your VM. You could easily call the function you want by accessing the ViewModel right inside that event handler, and there's nothing particularly egregious about this approach. That said, there is another concept called a Command that will live in the View Model itself; a command, as opposed to an event handler, is a Property, so you can bind to that in your .xaml file using
...Command="{Binding FunctionNameHere}"...
It also has nice features like being able to define when the command is valid (so you can disable your button automatically when, for example, the form is missing a required field).
I'm learning Silverlight/MVVM. Now I'm facing problem with Commands, that I think are just overcomplicated. I wanted to execute close on child window after command.
According to separation of concers it should be execute from view, as I understand.
As far as I looked for solution I found it and it wasn't trivial for such a trivial task.
To sum it up, I must say that separation of view, viewmodel and model are great ideas.
Also Binding from View to ViewModel is nice and clean.
But what about Commands. As I understand they are just piece of code to execute (like delegates).But they are too complicated and troublesome.
I want to know you opinion. What about idea that VieModel would have properties and normal public methods, that it will be executed from events of views. If I will not pass any view related element to the view model it still will be MVVM, right?
Of course, there will be one drawback, that i will have to bind separatly IsEnabled to properties in ViewModel to mimic CanUpdate functionality of Commands. It's not that you view doesn't know about ViewModel.
Views are not very testable, are they?
It would be very flexible. For example, in event for click i would do some strict view logic, call method from viewmodel object and then maybe call another method and after all that do some more view logic.
So, what do you think?
You can try using Cailburn.Micro. It is an open-source framework that runs over WPF and hides some of it complexities. For example, it replaces command-classes with just plain method calls.
You can implement windows-closing by returning a special result that will do the actual closing of the view. That way your ViewModel will still be fully unit-testable, as you can check that expected result is returned, and it will not be view-aware.
Here is an example on how to implement this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/10175228/258737
I'm currently in the need of setting the SelectedIndex property of my TabControl when a certain event (IEventAggregator) takes place and thought about how I'd implement that.
I came up with 2 possibilities:
Use GetView() provided by ViewAware in order to access my TabControl and set the SelectedIndex to my value
Use a property in my associated ViewModel and bind this property to my TabControl's SelectedIndex property via XAML
Both options are working fine but I personally want to get this question answered since this is not the first time I'm wondering where to implement the functionality in such cases.
I know that the first option won't enable the Notify support but besides that: What would be the proper way?
Having a GetView() method to manipulate the view directly from the viewmodel completely breaks MVVM. You might as well just put all your logic in codebehind. The whole point of MVVM is to abstract away the actual view so that it is decoupled from the logic, and the app can be unit tested.
What if you change your mind about the tabs in the future and decide to show your multiple views some other way? You've now got to start editing your viewmodel to edit the new view instead of just tweaking some XAML.
And for unit testing you're going to have no way to mock out your TabControl.
I've recently been learning the MVVM pattern in WPF and just started making my first proper, rather big application. So far it's all smooth sailing, and I'm liking what I'm seeing a lot. However I recently met something of a stumbling block.
The application is built with a main TabControl, each TabItem containing a pretty big details view.
TabControl inside main View, ItemsSource bound to MainViewModel.OpenTabs
TabItem with data specific View+ViewModel
TabItem with data specific View+ViewModel
TabItem with data specific View+ViewModel
etc...
The OpenTabs collection is an ObservableCollection<BaseViewModel> on MainViewModel, and the TabControl's SelectedItem is bound to MainViewModel.ActiveTab.
So far so good! However, what I'm not sure I'm getting is how to handle closing of tabs while at the same time following MVVM. If I wasn't trying to be strict with the MVVM (in order to learn it properly), I'd just bind a MouseDown-event on the TabItem-headers and thus get a reference to the clicked item in that event, removing it from the OpenTabs collection in that way. But - unless I'm mistaken - the interaction logic shouldn't need references to actual UI items in order to be effective and proper MVVM.
So, how do I handle this MVVM style? Do I use a command that sends a specific parameter with it to my MainViewModel? It seems like the preferred implementation of ICommand in MVVM doesn't take object parameters (looking at MVVM Light as well as some other tutorials).
Should I just create a CloseTab(int id) public method on my MainViewModel and call that from the view codebehind after catching the Click on my TabItem close button? This seems like MVVM-cheating. :)
Also a final note - this should work even if I click close on a TabItem that isn't the currently active one. Otherwise it wouldn't be hard to setup with OpenTabs.Remove(ActiveTab).
Thanks for any help! I'd also appreciate any links to recommended reading/watching regarding these problems.
Solution: It seems the best way is to use a command that can accept command parameters. I used the RelayCommand from MVVM Light framework:
In MainViewModel:
CloseTabCommand = new RelayCommand<BaseViewModel>((vm) =>
{
OpenTabs.Remove(vm);
});
In XAML:
<Button
Command="{Binding Source={StaticResource MainViewModel}, Path=CloseTabCommand}"
CommandParameter="{Binding}">
Note: Your binding paths may of course vary depending on how your Views and ViewModels are set up.
The best and the right way is to create the command. In different frameworks ICommand usually has two implementation, with the parameter and without one (as often you do not need it).
MVVM light has two ICommand implementation as well: RelayCommand and RelayCommand<T>
I suggest creating your own DelegateCommand implementation, a good example on how to this can be found here or here. Or use the Prism variant, you can download it here.
With a DelegateCommand you can pass arguments down to your ViewModel.
I'm a bit confused as to what a viewmodel's role is beyond databinding. I have a menu built in silverlight. The menu has x number of menu items which is determined at runtime. One of the features I would like to add to this is that each menuitem has a different text colour when hovered over.
Is it the role of the view to have a colour selector method or should the view handle this in it's code behind?
Normally I would keep the coloring/styling in XAML if possible - My view of the ViewModel is that it is responsible for providing all the data (ie. not graphical stuff) from the Model in a manner the View can consume.
If it was complex logic that determined the color and it was to be reused - I might be tempted to put it in the ViewModel tho.
The view model is used by the data binding process as a "safe" way to allow you to sort/filter/group the records as seen by a specific control without (necessarily) making changes to the actual bound data set (that is, unless/until you tell it to). (FMI read Bea's article here.)
I agree with Goblin here, in that the presentation aspects like color might be best kept separate in the XAML, for example in the DataTemplate used by that control.