I am using asp.net core 2.2 and model validation for server side validation.
Its working fine except for known types.
this is my class structure
//Main Class
[DataContract]
[KnownType(typeof(SubClass2))]
[KnownType(typeof(SubClass1))]
public partial class MainCass : Base
{
//properties comes here
}
//Sub Classes
[DataContract]
public partial class SubClass1 : MainCass
{
//properties comes here
}
[DataContract]
public partial class SubClass2 : MainCass
{
[DataMember]
[CustomRequired(ErrorMessageResourceType = typeof(ErrorMessages),
ErrorMessageResourceName = "FieldRequired", Caption = "name required")]
public string Name {get; set; }
}
//this is my request model
[DataContract]
public partial class request:Base
{
[DataMember]
public List<MainCass> MainCassList {get; set; }
}
now the validation attribute of Name in SubClass2 is not getting called.
From UI I am sending type Subclass2.
The model binder does not support polymorphism. It creates the literal type(s) of the model and any related sub-models. Then, it attempts to bind the request body to these types. It will not infer derived types.
In other words, it sounds like you're sending instances of SubClass1 and SubClass2 as part of your MainClassList property. However, the model binder is going to create all of these as MainClass because that's the type that's defined. Any posted data specific to SubClass1 or SubClass2 will simply be discarded, and in the end, all you have is instances of MainClass. As such, of course no specific validation on SubClass1 or SubClass2 is being run, because you have no instances of SubClass1 or SubClass2.
Related
I want to return a custom class from my custom AutoQuery endpoint that inherits QueryResponse<T> but adds a few extra properties.
public class WritingAssignmentBlogLookUpResponse : QueryResponse<BlogDto>, IResponse
{
public bool Success { get; set; }
public string Message { get; set; }
public string DebugMessage { get; set; }
}
But if I specify request like so:
[Route("/assignment/blogs/", "POST")]
public class WritingAssignmentBlogsLookUpRequest : QueryDb<Blog, BlogDto>, IReturn<WritingAssignmentBlogLookUpResponse>
{
}
Then the return type specified in generatd DTO for client.post(req) is QueryResponse<BlogDto> and it doesn't generate WritingAssignmentBlogLookUpResponse at all.
Do I just have to specify return type as any from my typescript service or is there a way to make the types match so I can strongly type it?
You can’t change AutoQuery responses which are already fixed in their service contract definition to return a QueryResponse<T>.
You can add extra info to the Meta Dictionary of the Response DTO (exists for this reason) otherwise if you need to change the Service Contract you’d need to convert it into a normal (I.e. non-AutoQuery) API which could use the Service Gateway to call an existing AutoQuery API that decorates the response.
I am a bit confused with ServiceStack 'old' and 'new' API and need some clarification and best practices, especially with Request / Response DTO's and routing. I watched some courses on Pluralsight and have the first three books listet on servicestack.net in my electronic bookshelf.
I like to 'restify' an existing application which is built using DDD patterns which means I have a high level of abstraction. The client is WPF and follows the MVVM pattern. I have 'client side service', 'server side service' and repository classes (and some aggregates too). I use NHibernate 4 (with fluent API and a code-first approach) as ORM. Only my repository classes know about the ORM. I have DTO's for all my Entity objects and in my WPF client I only work with those DTOs in the ViewModel classes. I heavily use AutoMapper to 'transfer' Entity objects to my DTO's and vice versa.
My confusion starts exactly with these DTO's and the Request / Response DTOs used in ServiceStack. Here is a very much simplified example of an Address Entity which illustrates the problem:
All my Entity Objects derive from EntityBase which contains basic properties used in all Entities:
public abstract class EntityBase : IEntity
{
public virtual Guid Id { get; protected set; }
public virtual DateTime CDate { get; set; } //creation date
public virtual string CUser { get; set; } //creation user
public virtual DateTime MDate { get; set; } //last modification date
public virtual string MUser { get; set; } //last modification user
//
// some operators and helper methods irrelevant for the question
// ....
}
public class Address : EntityBase
{
public string Street { get; private set; }
public string AdrInfo1 { get; private set; }
public string AdrInfo2 { get; private set; }
public string ZipCode { get; private set; }
public string City { get; private set; }
public string Country { get; private set; }
}
Of course there are collections and references to related objects which are ignored here as well as database mappers, naming conventions etc. The DTO I have looks like this:
public class AddressDto
{
public Guid Id { get; set; } // NHibernate GUID.comb, NO autoincrement ints!!
public DateTime CDate { get; set; }
public string CUser { get; set; }
public DateTime MDate { get; set; }
public string MUser { get; set; }
public string Street { get; private set; }
public string AdrInfo1 { get; private set; }
public string AdrInfo2 { get; private set; }
public string ZipCode { get; private set; }
public string City { get; private set; }
public string Country { get; private set; }
}
To use this with ServiceStack I need to support the following:
CRUD functionality
Filter / search functionality
So my 'Address service' should have the following methods:
GetAddresses (ALL, ById, ByZip, ByCountry, ByCity)
AddAddress (Complete AddressDTO without Id. CDate, CUser are filled automatically without user input)
UpdateAddress (Complete AddressDTO without CUser and CDate, MDate and MUser filled automatically without user input)
DeleteAddress (Just the Id)
For me it is pretty clear, that all Requests return either a single AddressDto or a List<AddressDto> as ResponseDTO except for the delete which should just return a status object.
But how to define all those RequestDTO's? Do I really have to define one DTO for EACH scenario?? In the books I only saw samples like:
[Route("/addresses", "GET")]
public class GetAddresses : IReturn<AddressesResponse> { }
[Route("/addresses/{Id}", "GET")]
public class GetAddressById : IReturn<AddressResponse>
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
}
[Route("/addresses/{City}", "GET")]
public class GetAddressByCity : IReturn<AddressResponse>
{
public string City { get; set; }
}
// .... etc.
This is a lot of boilerplate code and remembers me a lot of old IDL compilers I used in C++ and CORBA.....
Especially for Create and Update I should be able to 'share' one DTO or even better reuse my existing DTO... For delete there is probably not much choice....
And then the filters. I have other DTOs with a lot more properties. A function approach like used in WCF, RPC etc is hell to code...
In my repositories I pass an entire DTO and use a predicate builder class which composes the LINQ where clause depending on the properties filled. This looks something like this:
List<AddressDto> addresses;
Expression<Func<Address, bool>> filter = PredicateBuilder.True<Address>();
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(address.Zip))
filter = filter.And(s => s.Zip == address.Zip);
// .... etc check all properties and dynamically build the filter
addresses = NhSession.Query<Address>()
.Where(filter)
.Select(a => new AddressDto
{
Id = a.Id,
CDate = a.CDate,
//.... etc
}).ToList();
Is there anything similar I could do with my RequestDTO and how should the routing be defined?
A lot of questions raised here have been covered in existing linked answers below. The Request / Response DTOs are what you use to define your Service Contract, i.e. instead of using RPC method signatures, you define your contract with messages that your Service accepts (Request DTO) and returns (Response DTO). This previous example also walks through guidelines on designing HTTP APIs with ServicesStack.
Use of well-defined DTOs have a very important role in Services:
You want to ensure all types your Services return are in DTOs since this, along with the base url of where your Services are hosted is all that's required for your Service Consumers to know in order to consume your Services. Which they can use with any of the .NET Service Clients to get an end-to-end Typed API without code-gen, tooling or any other artificial machinery.
DTOs are what defines your Services contract, keeping them isolated from any Server implementation is how your Service is able to encapsulate its capabilities (which can be of unbounded complexity) and make them available behind a remote facade. It separates what your Service provides from the complexity in how it realizes it. It defines the API for your Service and tells Service Consumers the minimum info they need to know to discover what functionality your Services provide and how to consume them (maintaining a similar role to Header files in C/C++ source code). Well-defined Service contracts decoupled from implementation, enforces interoperability ensuring that your Services don't mandate specific client implementations, ensuring they can be consumed by any HTTP Client on any platform. DTOs also define the shape and structure of your Services wire-format, ensuring they can be cleanly deserialized into native data structures, eliminating the effort in manually parsing Service Responses.
Auto Queryable Services
If you're doing a lot of data driven Services I recommend taking a look at AutoQuery which lets you define fully queryable Services without an implementation using just your Services Request DTO definition.
I have the following Domain Model:
public class DaybookEnquiry : Entity
{
public DateTime EnquiryDate { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("EnquiryType")]
public int DaybookEnquiryTypeId { get; set; }
public string AccountNumber { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("User")]
public int UserId { get; set; }
#region Navigation Properties
public virtual User User { get; set; }
public virtual DaybookEnquiryType EnquiryType { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<DaybookQuoteLine> QuoteLines { get; set; }
#endregion
}
This is inside of a project named DomainModel. Entity is just a base class which my domain models inherit from, it contains an Id field.
I then have other projects inside my solution called ServiceInterface and ServiceModel. ServiceInterface contains all my services for my application and ServiceModel contains my DTO's and routes etc.. I'm trying to follow the guidelines set out here: Physical Project Structure
My EnquiriesService contains a method to create a new enquiry in my database using a repository:
public void Post(CreateEnquiry request)
{
// Not sure what to do here..
// _repository.Insert(request);
}
My CreateEnquiry request looks like so:
[Api("POST a single Enquiry for Daybook.")]
[Route("/enquiries", "POST")]
public class CreateEnquiry : IReturnVoid { }
As you can see, the CreateEnquiry request object is empty. Do I need to add properties to it to match my Domain Model and then use AutoMapper or something similar to map the fields to my Domain Model and pass that into my repository?
The Insert method on my repository looks like so:
public virtual void Insert(T entity)
{
DbEntityEntry dbEntityEntry = DbContext.Entry(entity);
if (dbEntityEntry.State != EntityState.Detached)
{
dbEntityEntry.State = EntityState.Added;
}
else
{
DbSet.Add(entity);
}
DbContext.SaveChanges();
}
Yes. Your Service request, in this case CreateEnquiry needs to have all the properties you need in order to do whatever it is you want to do!
I've seen two different models for Create vs Update:
Use one request objects called, say, SetEnquiry that has a nullable id field. When null and using the POST HTTP verb, it internally creates a new object. And when not null and using the PATCH HTTP verb, it internally updates an object. You can use ServiceStack's implementation of AbstractValidator<T> to add logic such as if POST then id field needs to be null; and if PATCH then id field cannot be null. This will help ensure your data is always as it needs to be.
Create two request objects -- one for Create and one for Update. The Create doesn't even have an id field, and the Update has one and requires it. You can use the same validation technique used above, except applied to each class independently, so you don't need the conditional check of if this verb do this; if that verb do that.
How you map to your data model is up to you. You can use something like AutoMapper or you can use ServiceStack's built-in TranslateTo and PopulateWith methods. I personally take a middle ground: I created my own object extension methods called MapTo and MapFrom that interally call TranslateTo and PopulateWith respectively. Why did I do this? Because then I control those extensions inside my own namespaces and when I need to do special mappings (like a column name doesn't match up, or one object is more complex than the other, or I simply want to ignore a particular column from one of the objects) I simply overload the MapTo and MapFrom with explicit types, giving it higher specificity than the generic methods.
So back to your question specifically. Assuming you're using the built in TranslateTo your service method might look like this:
public void Post(CreateEnquiry request)
{
_repository.Insert(request.TranslateTo<Enquiry>());
}
One more thing: I generally return the object itself when doing a Create and Update. As fields can change (auto-calculated fields, for example) I like to return the object back to the caller. This is preference and has no real bearing on the answer I'm giving you. Just throwing it out there!
I get the following error: The type 'EfTest.Person' was not mapped. Check that the type has not been explicitly excluded by using the Ignore method or NotMappedAttribute data annotation. Verify that the type was defined as a class, is not primitive, nested or generic, and does not inherit from EntityObject.
when running this code:
using System.Data.Entity;
namespace EfTest
{
internal class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var db = new PersonContext())
{
db.Persons.Add(new Person());
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
public class PersonContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Person> Persons { get; set; } //people ;)
}
public class Person : EfTest2.Person
{
public int PersonId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
}namespace EfTest2
{
public class Person
{
public int Age { get; set; }
}
}
can you help and explain why new type can not have same name as its base?
I would focus on the keyword nested in the error. I'm sure taking it out of EfTest2 namespace and keeping the namespace the same will correct this issue. Of course then you must change the base class name from Person to some thing else.
EF has quite complex multi-layered mapping and some of these layers are not directly visible outside. This is a problem of mapping objects into their entity representation in EDM. The point is that EF is not using full class names (including namespaces) but only bare class names so your Person classes are in collision and only one can be resolved.
The origin of this behavior is probably in EF 4.0 when it was used to simplify class creation for POCO models and make namespaces independent on the EDMX.
I think you cannot write the class next to the main session.
You have to separate it to another cs file.
I solved the problem by doing that. Worth a try
We have a class Event (it's actually named differently, but I'm just making abstraction):
public class Event
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public EventType EventType { get; set; }
}
We need to build an instance of a Message class with this object, but depending on the EventType, we use a different builder:
switch (event.EventType)
{
case EventType.First:
message = FirstMessageBuilder.Build(event);
break;
case EventType.Second:
message = SecondMessageBuilder.Build(event);
break;
}
Do you think this is acceptable, or should we take the following approach:
Make an abstract class:
public class Event
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public abstract Message BuildMessage();
}
Then derive two classes: class FirstMessage and class SecondMessage and make the domain objects responsible for building the message.
I hope it isn't too abstract. The bottom line is we need to transform one class to another. A simple mapper won't do, because there are properties with XML content and such (due to a legacy application making the events). Just accept what we're trying to do here.
The real question is: can a domain object be responsible for such a transformation, or would you not recommend it? I would avoid the ugly switch statement, but add complexity somewhere else.
Whilst I agree with Thomas, you might want to look at the following design patterns to see if they help you:
Vistor Pattern
Double-Dispatch Pattern
Builder Pattern
Strictly speaking, a domain object shouldn't be responsible for anything other than representing the domain. "Changing type" is clearly a technical issue and should be done by some kind of service class, to maintain a clear separation of concerns...
In order to gain the readability of
var message = eventInstance.AsMessage();
as well following the single responsibility principle, you could define AsMessage() as an extension method of the event type.
There are few possible solutions. To use abstract factory:
public interface IMessageFactory
{
Message Create();
}
public class FirstMessageFactory : IMessageFactory
{
public Message Create()
{
//...
}
}
public class SomeService
{
private readonly IMessageFactory _factory;
public SomeService(IMessageFactory factory)
{
_factory = factory;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
var message = _factory.Create();
//...
}
}
Now you can wire IoC container to right factory for requested service.
To use Assembler which makes the transformation:
public interface IAssembler<TSource, TDestination>
{
TDestination Transform(TSource source);
}
This is quite similar to factory pattern, but if you are dependent on EventType, its possible to do it like:
public interface IAssembler<TEventType>
{
object Transform(object source);
}
I would encapsulate the logic into a separate Factory/Builder class, and use an extension method on Event to call the builder.
This would give you the best of both worlds.