(Note: I chose to not use the Navigation Framework)
I have a WizardViewModel which is linked to WizardView.
The WizardViewModel declares and instantiates a command "Next".
It also contains a Property "ActiveSpell" of Type SpellViewModel.
The SpellViewModel contains several PageViewModels, each having a View counterpart.
The ActivePage Property (on SpellViewModel) tells the ui which view to take.
Now I have the following problem:
When I click a button to switch to the next page,
I need access to the "Next" command defined in the WizardViewModel,
but I only have access to a PageViewModel there.
I could just add a Parent property to each child ViewModel,
but I'm not sure if that is a good idea.
Or maybe there is another nicer/common way to do that.
You can use Event Aggregator, to adjust the interaction between ViewModels.
You don't need Parent property. Your view model structure is good, just look at the picture, to understand how you should bind your view model onto the view:
Next command should be implemented something like that:
public void NextExecute()
{
ActualSpell.MoveToNextPage();
}
UPDATE:
According to your comment, Arokh, I've updated the post.
I think, in this case you should implement ActivateCreatePersonSpell command in WizardViewModel.This command should:
save actual spell state
open CreatePerson spell
once person is created set saved spell with result of creation person
The last what you need to do is to bind ActivateCreatePersonSpell command to button on the page. I propose to use ViewModelLocator for these purposes.Look at this post for example.
I had to implement a wizard once and I liked and mimicked the way Josh Smith and Karl Shifflett set up their WizardViewModel and wizard page view models in this example project (source code available with the article):
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/InternationalizedWizard.aspx
They kept the Next command as part of their WizardViewModel, but created a WizardPageViewModelBase that all of the wizard pages derive from. That allowed the WizardViewModel to control which page is the current page, and it allowed the WizardViewModel to query the current page view model to see if the Next command can execute, thus enabling or disabling the Next button on the wizard. (That is, the wizard view model knew about the page view models, but the page view models didn't need to know anything about the "parent" wizard view model.)
As for adding links to parent view models, it's an approach that works, and I've done it before when I started working with MVVM, but after time I found the approach to result in some difficult to maintain code as every view model becomes interdependent.
Related
I actually learn the MVVM-Pattern and I found in a Tutorial this:
d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance step1:ViewModel}">
I know that I use the Data Context to bind Data but what I don´t understand is for what the DesignInstance is usefull and why I write it down there ?
On the MSDN HP stands: "DesignInstance is a design-time property." But I can´t do anything with that do.
Edit:
The Tutorial Step 1 from http://www.learnmvvm.com/tutorial.html#step1-1
The design instance is used when the view is opened in the visual studio editor.
Say you have a view that uses a list view to display a list of products, and you use a template to display each product. Without a viewmodel, your view will not display anything, and you can't really see what the view will look like in the application.
You don't want to run your entire app, with all its dependencies from the editor. Instead supply a design instance, with some stub data that makes the view render some products. Think of it as some fake test data that makes your view render correctly in the editor.
You may define the view model for your view through a dependency injection framework like Cariburn or simply set the view model in the code behind therefore your view will run and work perfectly but since the view model is not explicitly defined in the view XAML file, the visual studio XAML designer does not have a clue where to navigate to when you want to navigate to the view model properties bound in the view. using DesignInstance with the right type will make the designer able to navigate to the view model properties for you.
I have a WPF application that I want to present a list of non-homogeneous VIEWS. I want to have a button that I can write a handler for that would display a view. Then since it is a view the user could interact with it (enter values in a TextBox for example) using an underlying view model (MVVM). So let me explain further. The flow that I am looking to achieve is that a user selects which view to display. The view is displayed in a list. Then the user interacts with this instance of the view. When the user clicks on the button again a possibly different view is displayed and the user can now interact with two views. This continues as long as the 'add' button is clicked adding to the views in the list. This is further complicated because first, each of these views first are different. The particular view that should be displayed is dependent on a parameter that is passed to the command. Second it is complicated because each of these views also have dependencies that are passed in via IoC and on down to the associated view model. In other words there is not a parameterless constructor for the view models. So I cannot define a view model/view relationship like:
<Window.Resources>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type views:SelectCustomerViewModel}"\>
<views:SelectCustomerView/>
</DataTemplate>
</Window.Resources>
I have searched and I see that one solution that comes close using the ItemTemplateSelector as outlined here. But as far as I can tell this only is a solution for a non-homogeneous display. If I revert to a list of views then it seems like I am breaking the MVVM model, as I would have to construct an appropriate view and assign the appropriate view model. How should I display/bring up a dynamic list of different views using the IoC from App.Xaml.cs?
An ItemTemplateSelector is a perfectly valid way of showing a different view (or portion of a view) for (possibly disparate) items that are shown in a list. Under the hood this is an implementation of a strategy pattern, where the view is chosen based on the data item.
However it seems that a tab view would also fit your criteria - as the command is triggered you instantiate a new tab for the required view. This view can be bound to the same viewmodel, so you could have changes from one tab being echoed on another tab. IIRC there are some tab view implementations that include something similar to a ItemTemplateSelector (because a tab view is a variation on a list control).
As for the IoC - don't be concerned about complexities there. Most IoC implementations will allow you to specify constructor parameter values or expressions as part of registering types.
How do I implement page specific navigation in WPF using MVVM? For example, if I have a "Settings" page and an "Accounts" page, each page has their own unique page specific navigation, but each navigation items are located in the same container in the app. The navigation container is docked to the left hand side of the app window, and will never change, the navigation items however change depending on the page the user is on. I have two approaches:
Create a navigation view and view model for each different navigation for each page
Create one navigation view and view model and dynamically add the necessary buttons accordingly based on whatever page the user is on
The second options seems better in my opinion, as it is more dynamic and only uses one view/view model, however I am not sure how to implement this. I can easily code up a view and view model for one navigation container, but making it dynamic is a little trickier. Any ideas?
Thanks!
I think you want to use DataTemplate and ContentControl, see Jeremy Alles Blog for a good example
So to answer your question, I would create a view and view model for each.
Use NavigationService and create the appropriate views and viewmodels.
I have a few questions regarding WPF commands.
Where should I put confirmation dialogs? Should I show them right inside the command callback function? What if in some areas in the application I don't want a command to show a confirmation?
If I have a user control that shows items that can be deleted. Should the command be in the application's view model, and I use it for the item deletion, or should the user control itself also have a command that in turn calls the view model's function? (Note: the application view model is the only one having the information needed to do this operation)
How can I pass data within a command? I am using mostly DelegateCommand, and upon firing a command for a grid item, I'd like to pass the selected item, otherwise the application's main view model would have to find the grid and figure out its selection which will hardcode the command to the grid and not make it reusable.
A bit of this is opinion and style . . . Here's my approach:
Question 1:
I have a utility class that handles any confirmation, and I use the lightweight messaging in MVVM Light to handle communication between the view, the confirmation, and the viewmodel.
Edit: A bit more information on point 1
From within my Command, I will send a message along the lines of
"ConfirmDeletionMessage", which is then picked up by my dialog utility
class. The dialog utility class displays the appropriate message to
the user, and checks the results. Based on the results, it will
either broadcast a "DeletionConfirmedMessage" or
"DeletionCanceledMessage," which is then handled by the ViewModel to
either complete or cancel the delete.
There is some risk involved if you have multiple subscribers to this
message, as you won't know what order they're going to be handled,
but if you have strict management on message consumers, or ensure
that they are able to run in a random order, this approach works
pretty well, and it separates your View and Model code in a testable
fashion.
Question 2:
This is a tough one, and it is going to depend on your overall application. I'm personally a fan of putting it in the item's viewmodel. That way, you don't have to worry about your third question as much. Instead, the delete action simply works on the item you're dealing with. However, if you have to act on data outside of your list item (like removing it from the list), it makes more sense for the command to be on the parent viewmodel.
Question 3:
Use the CommandParameter property. You can bind this to whatever you want.
EDIT to Answer #2
Mark Green (who commented below) got me thinking. I originally adopted this approach for WP7, and it absolutely suited what I needed to do. However, there are other ways of handling this that should absolutely be considered. Another option is a "confirmation class" that can be used by your viewmodel. If you are using an IoC kernel, this becomes easy to do with constructor / property injection. Alternatively, if you have other methods of getting the class, do so, but do it in a way that you can mock out in testing. It might look something like this:
public class ExampleViewmodel : ViewModel
{
private IConfirmDialogManager _dialogManager;
public ExampleViewmodel(IConfirmDialogManager dialog)
{
_dialogManager = dialog;
}
// ... code happens ...
private void DeleteCommand()
{
bool result = _dialogManager.Confirm("Are you sure you want to delete?");
}
}
With an IConfirmDialogManager interface that looks like this:
public interface IConfirmDialogManager
{
bool Confirm(string message);
}
Which you would then implement appropriately.
Where should I put confirmation dialogs? Should I show them right inside the command callback function? What if in some areas in the application I don't want a command to show a confirmation?
Confirmation dialogs and show message dialogs are views.
Your VM should have a way of notifying your view that it wants to display something or ask something, then the view should decide how to display it (status bar, window, pop-up, voice message, ...)
If I have a user control that shows items that can be deleted. Should the command be in the application's view model, and I use it for the item deletion, or should the user control itself also have a command that in turn calls the view model's function? (Note: the application view model is the only one having the information needed to do this operation)
The items control should raise a delete command. The VM should handle the command and decide what to do (the VM should have the list of the selected items and the view should be binding to that list).
How can I pass data within a command? I am using mostly DelegateCommand, and upon firing a command for a grid item, I'd like to pass the selected item, otherwise the application's main view model would have to find the grid and figure out its selection which will hardcode the command to the grid and not make it reusable.
Commands can have parameters (e.g. RoutedUICommand). The command binding can specify a binding expression for the parameter. However, the correct approach is for the VM to be the source of the selection with a two way binding between the view's selection and the VM's.
simply use a dialogservice in your viewmodel
it depends but nevertheless the object/viewmodel where the command is located can easily reached with RelativeSource binding
CommandParameter is one way. in fact you use mvvm all information you need should be bind to your viewmodel. so if you have a command and you need the selecteditem from a listview, you can bind it to the viewmodel and dont need to set this as commandparameter
First off, I'm new to MVVM, so please help me out on this :)
Suppose I have multiple views in my app. In my case, I have an editor view, and a browser view.
Both of them have to work with a viewmodel of a "node" I'm editing.
So where does the viewmodel actually get created ?
Suppose the Editor is told to edit a certain node - It could create a new "NodeViewModel" and work with that. But at the same time, there's a NodeBrowserView, which allows people to shortcut-select a different node.
Basicly - I need the EditorView to work with the same ViewModel as the BrowserView, so I need a generic "GetViewModelfor(X)" method.
So how is this supposed to work ? :)
Cheers :)
Both your editor view and browser view should operate on some kind of NodeViewModel. You shouldn't need separate view models just for the different view scenario.
Now, can you edit not-yet-shown-to-user node? If no (as in, user decides what is edited), view models should be created at the very first time their content needs to be presented to user. In most cases this would in some browser/details views, so that user can select element and then chose to edit it.
Edit:
Regarding your comment. NodeViewModel should be provided for editor view.
The providing part can be done for example via constructor injection or by setting view's data context manually. For example, when user browses all nodes in the browser view, he can double click on the list item and editor view will pop-up:
// this will probably be done in response to event
private void ListItemDoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
NodeViewModel currentItem = // extract current list item
EditorView editorView = new EditorView(currentItem);
editorView.Show();
}
Alternatively, if you want to avoid this kind of strong coupling between CompositeView and EditorView you can always use events, however it's not always necessary.
One more thing I was thinking of in terms of design would be adding extra view model, call it NodesListViewModel. How the program flow might look like:
At application startup, get your nodes (be it from DB, file, service, anything)
Create instance of NodeListViewModel which takes dependency on IList<Node> (list of node entities)
NodeListViewModel will build and expose collection of NodeViewModel elements
Create instance of your main program window, which uses composite view. It needs NodeListViewModel as its data context.
Whenever user decides he needs to edit item, it's all ready. Browser has a list of all NodeViewModels, it can easily pick up current and pass it to dedicated view.
In cases like this I prefer to use a single main view model and have a "current item" that the view connects to instead. This is a lot easier to do instead of passing / creating new view models around each time a user clicks a different node / grid row / etc. I really see no need to a separate view model either when the same operations can be achieved in the overall view model. It reduces complexity and reduces the change of creating objects (view models) and leaving them hanging around because a reference to them was not released until the application is closed.