I have built a class library that acts as a GUI framework that can be inherited by other projects. This application is based on projects Wild and Gemini.
My problem is that upon restoring Avalon Dock's layout using the standard serializer
var layoutSerializer = new XmlLayoutSerializer(manager);
where manager is type DockingManager. The manager restores and empty tab. My guess is that Caliburn Micro cannot find the stored ViewModel (named HomeViewModel). However, I am struggling to confirm this.
I believe my bootstrapper to be correct and that the MEF containers are being setup correctly to allow resolution of external types. I have debugged the project to a point where I think this issue is occurring and in the output window I can see Attach(Home) where the attach is occurring (note, "Home" is the display name of the HomeViewModel). However, I don't know what is wrong with the attach process as this is handled by MEF/Caliburn.
I am really stuck with debugging this an wondered if
Any one could offer any insightful advice as to how to proceed with the debugging process?
Anyone would be willing to take a look at the solution?
I have spent a hell of a lot of time debugging this without any luck and the problem is sufficiently esoteric and illusive as to render most posts here irrelevant to me.
Thanks for your time.
as discussed and after looking on the sample code provided, I understand that the following
HomeViewModel or can say LayoutItemBase is not supposed to be reopened as ShouldReopenOnStartup is set to false
if you close the application while leaving a document open for HomeViewModel it is restored on next start with blank view [Not OK]
Analysis
the SaveState method was correctly honoring ShouldReopenOnStartup value and was not emitting the state for the HomeViewModel but dock manager was still emitting an element for the document.
So upon next restart the LoadState does not find any stored state but a window was created as an element was present in the dock manager's layout state
<LayoutDocument Title="HomePP" IsSelected="True" IsLastFocusedDocument="True" ContentId="d716f824-cfff-4b54-8fd6-2d026a99369a" .../>
you did try to use e.Cancel property of Serialization callback to cancel the event, but seems like it is not supposed to prevent of loading a window but just simply to cancel the event if not needed.
Resolution
So the ideal approach is to close the documents which are not supposed to be restored before saving the layout
here is how I did
ShellViewmodel.cs : Line 279 method SaveState(string)
change the following code
if (!item.ShouldReopenOnStartup)
continue;
to
if (!item.ShouldReopenOnStartup)
{
//this item is not supposed to be restored so close the window before saving layout
IDocument doc = item as IDocument;
if (doc != null)
CloseDocument(doc);
continue;
}
Related
There is a complex App, I try to simplify the scenario. There is a host .exe (.NET), which contains lots of controls (ActiveX, .NET, WPF).
One control is basically a grid with items (call it "list"), and when new selection happens, it sends a message to another WPF control (call it "DataView"). "DataView" will display details of the current selection of "list". When DataView receives that message, it will re-create it's ViewModel, and assign to its DataContext, so re-create its View.
Its View is very complex (XAML declared), full of controls, templates, and also contains several Images (type: NonDPIImage, derived from Image, with a few basic non-important change, just consider it as Image), and it's Source is a Converter, which creates the BitmapImages.
<Image.Source>
<MultiBinding Converter="{StaticResource ImageConverter}">
...
It works fine, but I noticed that after selection changes the "DataView" update is getting slower and slower.
I debugged, and found that after several selection changes, all previous Views are still in the memory, and all are rendering its content, so the ImageConverter is called for all previous Views, thus it's getting slower and slower.
I tried to profile, this is what I see after 10+ selection.
You see the previous Views are still in the memory (lower prio problem), with the Images, and those are still being rendered (high prio problem), making the App slower and slower.
I am not really familiar with WPF, I read after leaks (mostly not DependencyProperty is used or similar), but this control is so difficult that first I wand to quickly workaround, so prevent rendering the leaked Views, and later on investigate the memory issue. (of course both would be the best...)
I tried that before DataContext assigned to new value, set the current View Image.Source to null, so at least the leaked Image will not render itself, but that caused the new View(!) also to lose its Image.Source, looks like WPF is caching or sharing like some static data?
As my first prio is to stop the "invisible render", after this I tried to set some of the model properties to null before creating the new one (so it would still leak, but at least no render anymore), so when Converter will receive properties to create the image, will see it's null, and skip the render.
But it behaves very strange!
For the leaked instances the breakpoint is not hit in the properties_get code, like as WPF cached the values or so?
This prevented me this path to continue.
Any help / idea would be appreciated guys.
Can you post your ImageConverter code?
the thing is creating an image from code and serving it as source for Image object,
can create strong link between them and memory leaks in scenarios like yours.
Try looking here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/21878235/7722174
I think I found the issue: there was a message hook added to the View HwndSource (AddHook()) , but was not removed. This kept the whole View (see the red rectangled class) alive.
Now if I call MyHwndSource.RemoveHook(WndProc) in the UserControl_Unloaded, the View will be also GCd.
We have a main window that launches a child window. That child window dynamically loads custom usercontrols. In the contructor of these usercontrols, I pass a master object which, from this master object, a usercontrol specific viewmodel is generated and assigned as its datacontext.
All of this is working quite well. However, I jst discovered that when I close the child window at least some of my custom usercontrols are still active. How am I supposed to clean up my controls/viewmodels? Nothing seems to get called until the main window is closed. No destructor, no Dispatcher.ShutdownStarted, no dispose is available, no closing event, nothing I can find.
Anyone know what is supposed to be done to properly clean up after the window is closed?
I believe you need to think precisely about what is responsible for creating your views and your viewmodels, and what is responsible for determining whether or not something can close or not, etc.
It is usually a good idea for whatever that created something to destroy it. Therefore, if your child window is creating custom user controls it perhaps should be responsible for removing them. However, I believe if none of your objects has a reference (or strong event subscription) it should be eventually garbage collected. You could implement a finalizer/destructor and output a Debug.String to the output window to see when this might eventually happen. A good memory profiler could also be a good idea. However, it is also likely that you need more precise control of telling your ViewModel when it has been closed.
It's hard to say exactly what should happen in your scenario because it really depends on your exact and specific setup. Let me describe to you a scenario I had in my application. I had several views that were being displayed in tab pages. The tab pages had an X button to close the tab, and my View contained a hosted Windows Forms control that needed to have .Dispose() called to clean up resources as well as it needed to be informed of when to unsubscribe from composite commands in the file menu system. So, initially, I had a problem... how does my ViewModel unsubscribe from commands when the tab pages remove's the view? How does the View which is contained in a WPF control know when it has been removed? here's what I came up with
The tab page itself should not be telling my program if a view can or can not be closed
I needed the ability to cancel the closing event in case of program logic (File saved? Yes/no/cancel)
I needed the ability to detect when it was closed so I could cleanup/unregister at that exact moment
My solution was to implement an interface in my viewmodel called IRemovable which exposed a Removable boolean and a Remove() method which returns a boolean (was removed or not). My tab control only displayed the X button if Removable was true, Tab Control's Closing fired the Remove() of the IRemovable ViewModel and if it returned false it set the event args Canceled property to true if the ViewModel's Remove returned false.
Therefore, the remove of the view model could prompt the user for confirmation, unregister from commands, etc. The view could handle Closed event and call Dispose on any Windows Forms components etc. (of course I had to check if my View.DataContext is IRemovable).
Anyway, I know this isn't an exact answer but hopefully it helps you come up with some thoughts on how to solve your own problem
I am making an asynchronous call to a web service. Since it might take a few seconds there is a status Label used to let the user know what's going on. But even though the call is async the first call seems to block for a few seconds and the status label takes too long to get updated. In WinForms I could force the label to refresh (using Update() I think) but not in WPF. Any super easy ways to get this working?
Thanks,
Gerry
You could move the entire call logic into a QueueWorkUserItem or BackgroundWorker block. That way the first proxy initialization would not block the UIThread (before the async. Begin/End pattern kicks in). Assuming that you are using databinding the object exposing the property bound to the Label implemented INotifyPropertyChanged everything should happen automagically.
I'd (wildly) guess that the blocking is due to the creation/initialization of the service proxy classes. If so, you could try to create the proxy earlier, or call your asynchronous web service in another thread.
The general answer to your question about refreshing controls... I have always relied on data binding to do this. That won't help though if the main UI thread is stuck doing something. And if the UI thread is stuck, I don't know that there's any way to get it to draw.
There isn't a way to tell the label to refresh that will actually work in your case. If the UI is being blocked, it won't refresh. Basically, when you actually get to the point where you update the label's text, it will show in WPF. The only possible exception that I can think to that would be if you are using a non-WPF control but even then it should work.
My suggestion would be to update the label before you perform the first action (even before variables are initialized, since this might be where the issue actually is). Here is a pseudocode example of what I mean (just in case I wasn't clear):
private void KickOffProcess()
{
label1.Text = "Processing ..."; //This is where you need to move the label update code
AsyncCall();
}
I'm writing a WPF app following MVVM principles.
I wan't to execute a command on startup - I'm in doubt as to what is the best method?
The ViewModel should be indifferent as to whether there are any views, right?
Is it then 'ok' to do stuff as the last thing in VM constructor? Or is there an event for 'application is now up and running, all initialization has completed' that I can hook onto?
It feels wrong to wire it into the view model?
To be a bit concrete, I'd like to do as Visual Studio and load 'most recent solution' if the user has selected that in preferences. If the user manually loads a solution through GUI I start the flow in a MainFormViewModel and I could handle the load in last lines of constructor there?
Any thoughts?
Anders, Denmark
The Windows.Interactivity approach or asynchronously loading their preferences from the constructor are equally viable - an alternative exists if your using the MefedMVVM framework.
You can also import the IContainerStatus to attach to the view being loaded entirely from the view model (and therefore nothing to forget doing in the XAML) More info is available here
I really wanted to avoid calling methods from within the ViewModel constructor - and in my view activating events from constructor is doing just that (or at least when using Prism as I am (should have mentioned that).
I ended up doing the simple thing and simply calling a Loaded method on my main ViewModel after construction has ended.
Nonetheless, Scott singled out as the answerer - thank you all for taking the time. I appreciate your point of view even if I chose another way in the end.
Anders, Denmark
var mainViewProvider = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IMainViewProvider>();
var mainWindowViewModelProvider = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IMainWindowViewModelProvider>();
var mainWindow = mainViewProvider.GetView();
var mainWindowViewModel = mainWindowViewModelProvider.GetViewModel();
mainWindow.DataContext = mainWindowViewModel;
mainWindowViewModel.Loaded(Settings.Default.LoadLatestOnStart);
mainWindow.Show();
What you can do is use your MainForm's (the one which needs to load the solution) Loaded event.
Use Windows.Interactivity EventTrigger to attach a command to Loaded event. And on that command's execution, load the solution.
I would introduce Controllers which are responsible for the UI workflow. They know when the application has started and they can execute Commands. This doesn't violate with the MVVM pattern. If you are interested how this work then you might find the sample applications of the WPF Application Framework (WAF) interesting.
That's ok if and when you setup the context in code, but not if you do it from xaml - for the sake of transparency and flexibility one should consider supporting both code and xaml.
Another approach could be to trigger something on your model from xaml when certain criteria has been met.
I believe a storyboard could be used for this approach.
/Torben Falck, Strongminds, Denmark, www.strongminds.dk
I have an MVVM application. In one of the ViewModels is the 'FindFilesCommand' which populates an ObservableCollection. I then implement a 'RemoveFilesCommand' in the same ViewModel. This command then brings up a window to get some more user input.
Where/what is the best way to do this whilst keeping with the MVVM paradigm? Somehow
doing:
new WhateverWindow( ).Show( )
in the ViewModel seems wrong.
Cheers,
Steve
I personally look at this scenario as one where the main window view model wants to surface a task for the end user to complete.
It should be responsible for creating the task, and initializing it. The view should be responsible for creating and showing the child window, and using the task as the newly instantiated window's view model.
The task can be canceled or committed. It raises a notification when it is completed.
The window uses the notification to close itself. The parent view model uses the notification to do additional work once the task has committed if there is followup work.
I believe this is as close to the natural/intuitive thing people do with their code-behind approach, but refactored to split the UI-independent concerns into a view model, without introducing additional conceptual overhead such as services etc.
I have an implementation of this for Silverlight. See http://www.nikhilk.net/ViewModel-Dialogs-Task-Pattern.aspx for more details... I'd love to hear comments/further suggestions on this.
In the Southridge realty example of Jaime Rodriguez and Karl Shifflet, they are creating the window in the viewmodel, more specifically in the execute part of a bound command:
protected void OnShowDetails ( object param )
{
// DetailsWindow window = new DetailsWindow();
ListingDetailsWindow window = new ListingDetailsWindow();
window.DataContext = new ListingDetailsViewModel ( param as Listing, this.CurrentProfile ) ;
ViewManager.Current.ShowWindow(window, true);
}
Here is the link:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jaimer/archive/2009/02/10/m-v-vm-training-day-sample-application-and-decks.aspx
I guess thats not of a big problem. After all, the Viewmodel acts as the 'glue' between the view and the business layer/data layer, so imho it's normal to be coupled to the View (UI)...
Onyx (http://www.codeplex.com/wpfonyx) will provide a fairly nice solution for this. As an example, look at the ICommonDialogProvider service, which can be used from a ViewModel like this:
ICommonFileDialogProvider provider = this.View.GetService<ICommonDialogProvider>();
IOpenFileDialog openDialog = provider.CreateOpenFileDialog();
// configure the IOpenFileDialog here... removed for brevity
openDialog.ShowDialog();
This is very similar to using the concrete OpenFileDialog, but is fully testable. The amount of decoupling you really need would be an implementation detail for you. For instance, in your case you may want a service that entirely hides the fact that you are using a dialog. Something along the lines of:
public interface IRemoveFiles
{
string[] GetFilesToRemove();
}
IRemoveFiles removeFiles = this.View.GetService<IRemoveFiles>();
string[] files = removeFiles.GetFilesToRemove();
You then have to ensure the View has an implementation for the IRemoveFiles service, for which there's several options available to you.
Onyx isn't ready for release yet, but the code is fully working and usable at the very least as a reference point. I hope to release stabilize the V1 interface very shortly, and will release as soon as we have decent documentation and samples.
I have run into this issue with MVVM as well. My first thought is to try to find a way to not use the dialog. Using WPF it is a lot easier to come up with a slicker way to do things than with a dialog.
When that is not possible, the best option seems to be to have the ViewModel call a Shared class to get the info from the user. The ViewModel should be completely unaware that a dialog is being shown.
So, as a simple example, if you needed the user to confirm a deletion, the ViewModel could call DialogHelper.ConfirmDeletion(), which would return a boolean of whether the user said yes or no. The actual showing of the dialog would be done in the Helper class.
For more advanced dialogs, returning lots of data, the helper method should return an object with all the info from the dialog in it.
I agree it is not the smoothest fit with the rest of MVVM, but I haven't found any better examples yet.
I'd have to say, Services are the way to go here.
The service interface provides a way of returning the data. Then the actual implementation of that service can show a dialog or whatever to get the information needed in the interface.
That way to test this you can mock the service interface in your tests, and the ViewModel is none the wiser. As far as the ViewModel is concerned, it asked a service for some information and it received what it needed.
What we are doing is somethng like that, what is described here:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/DialogBehavior.aspx?msg=3439968#xx3439968xx
The ViewModel has a property that is called ConfirmDeletionViewModel. As soon as I set the Property the Behavior opens the dialog (modal or not) and uses the ConfirmDeletionViewModel. In addition I am passing a delegate that is executed when the user wants to close the dialog. This is basically a delegate that sets the ConfirmDeletionViewModel property to null.
For Dialogs of this sort. I define it as a nested class of the FindFilesCommand. If the basic dialog used among many commands I define it in a module accessible to those commands and have the command configure the dialog accordingly.
The command objects are enough to show how the dialog is interacting with the rest of the software. In my own software the Command objects reside in their own libraries so dialog are hidden from the rest of the system.
To do anything fancier is overkill in my opinion. In addition trying to keep it at the highest level often involving creating a lot of extra interfaces and registration methods. It is a lot of coding for little gain.
Like with any framework slavish devotion will lead you down some strange alleyways. You need to use judgment to see if there are other techniques to use when you get a bad code smell. Again in my opinion dialogs should be tightly bound and defined next to the command that use them. That way five years later I can come back to that section of the code and see everything that command is dealing with.
Again in the few instances that a dialog is useful to multiple commands I define it in a module common to all of them. However in my software maybe 1 out of 20 dialogs is like this. The main exception being the file open/save dialog. If a dialog is used by dozens of commands then I would go the full route of defining a interface, creating a form to implement that interface and registering that form.
If Localization for international use is important to your application you will need to make sure you account for that with this scheme as all the forms are not in one module.