I am new to WPF and C# im trying to understand how can I update a UI element from a BL class (to keep a seperation between the logic and the UI) the bl gets periodic updates from a c++ network component and should update the form once a new argument comes in (I read on the msdn website but I want to see some concrete examples to make sure I got it right)
Because of your gets periodic updates from a c++ network component comment, I am assuming that you already have a system to update your property. I would expose that property from your business class in a view model class, a class with public properties and ICommand functions designed specifically to supply all of the required data to a view, or UserControl.
To be honest, I wouldn't have that (or any) functionality in a business class (depending what you mean by business class)... I'd personally put it straight into the view model, or have a manager/service class that exposed it.
If you insist on keeping it where it is, you'll have to implement either an event or a delegate in your business class so that users of that class can be alerted as to when the value changes. Then you could simply attach a handler to your event/delegate from the view model class and easily update the exposed property whenever the actual property changes.
So it would go a little something like this... in your business class (I am assuming that your value is an int, but you can change this if it is incorrect... the principal is the same):
public delegate void FieldUpdate(int value);
public FieldUpdate OnFieldUpdate { get; set; }
...
private int field;
public int Field
{
get { return field; }
set
{
if (value != field)
{
field = value;
if (OnFieldUpdate != null) OnFieldUpdate(field);
}
}
}
Then in your view model:
private YourBusinessClass instance = new YourBusinessClass();
public YourBusinessClass Instance
{
get { return instance; }
set { instance = value; NotifyPropertyChanged("Instance"); }
}
Attach a handler:
instance.OnFieldUpdate += OnBusinessClassFieldUpdate;
...
public void OnBusinessClassFieldUpdate(int value)
{
Instance = value;
}
Now whenever the field is updated in the business class, the view model (and data bound UI controls) will automatically update via the delegate.
Related
Short version:
If I have ViewModel, containing its Model object and exposing its properties, how do I get the model "back" after it has been edited? If the Model-inside-ViewModel is public, it violates encapsulation, and if it is private, I cannot get it (right?).
Longer version:
I am implementing a part of an application which displays collections of objects. Let's say the objects are of type Gizmo, which is declared in the Model layer, and simply holds properties and handle its own serialization/deserialization.
In the Model layer, I have a Repository<T> class, which I use to handle collections of MasterGizmo and DetailGizmo. One of the properties of this repository class is an IEnumerable<T> Items { get; } where T will be some of the Gizmo subtype.
Now since Gizmo doesn't implement INPC, I have created the following classes in ViewModel layer:
GizmoViewModel, which wraps every public property of a Gizmo so that setting any property raises PropertyChanged accordingly;
[**] RepositoryViewModel<T>, which has an ObservableCollection<GizmoViewModel> whose CollectionChanged is listened to by a method that handles Adds, Removes and Updates to the repository.
Notice that the Model layer has a "Repository of Models", while the ViewModel layer has a "ViewModel with an ObservableCollection of ViewModels".
The doubt is related to the [**] part above. My RepositoryViewModel.CollectionChangedHandler method is as follows:
void CollectionChangedHandler(object sender, NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e)
{
switch (e.Action)
{
case NotifyCollectionChangedAction.Add:
foreach (var added in e.NewItems)
{
var gvm = added as GizmoViewModel;
if (gvm != null)
{
//// IS ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVES BELOW THE RIGHT ONE?
// Gizmo g = gvm.RetrieveModel(); ?? proper getter ??
// Gizmo g = GetModelFromViewModel(gvm); ?? external getter ??
// Gizmo g = gvm.Model; ?? public model property ??
_gizmo_repository.Add(g);
}
}
break;
....
Besides that, if anyone can detect any MVVM smell here, I'll be happy to know.
We can deal with our Models even outside the View and ViewModel layers, so leaving the model publicly accessible from ViewModel is I believe acceptable.
Let say you are creating the Models in "DataLayer" you can pass the instance of the Model to the ViewModel. To illustrate my point:
///Models ////////////////////////////
public interface IGizmo{}
public class Gizmo:IGizmo{}
public class SuperGizmo : IGizmo {}
public class SuperDuperGizmo : IGizmo { }
//////////////////////////////////////
public interface IGizmoViewModel<out T>
{
T GetModel();
}
public abstract class GizmoViewModelBase : IGizmoViewModel<IGizmo>
{
protected GizmoViewModelBase(IGizmo model)
{
_Model = model;
}
private readonly IGizmo _Model;
public IGizmo GetModel()
{
return _Model;
}
}
public class GizmoViewModel : GizmoViewModelBase
{
public GizmoViewModel(Gizmo model)
: base(model) { }
}
public class SuperDuperGizmoViewModel : GizmoViewModelBase
{
public SuperDuperGizmoViewModel(SuperDuperGizmo model)
: base(model){}
}
Your repository of Models will be updated on whatever updates it get from the ViewModel as long as you passed the same instance. So there is no need to have a repository of ViewModels to get the updates.
Reading your code, I think there is something of a mixup regarding your ViewModel and Model separation.
So, as I understand it, when your ObservableCollection of GizmoViewModel's changes, you are trying to add the Gizmo instance of the new item back to your Model?
I would approach this differently. You should create your Gizmo instances inside your Model layer, and when you do this you should add it to the Repository.
Otherwise, you haven't provided enough information - or rather, you have provided too much but it is the wrong sort of information. You need to describe the situation in which you want to do this, where these GizmoViewModels are created, etc.
From what I can see here, your GizmoViewModel has a dependency to your Repository<T>, so why not pass in the repository when you create your view model?
public class GizmoViewModel
{
private IRepository<Gizmo> _Repo;
//Underlying model (Doesn't implement INotifyPropertyChanged)
private Gizmo _Model;
//Wrapping properties
public int MyProperty
{
get { return _Model.Property; }
set
{
_Model.Property = value;
NotifyOfPropertyChange();
}
}
...
public GizmoViewModel(IRepository<Gizmo> repo)
{
_Repo = repo;
}
public void AddToRepo()
{
_Repo.Add(_Model);
}
...
It would be even better if these methods are inside the RepositoryViewModel base class. You can really go crazy with inheritance here. Perhaps something like this:
var gvm = added as IRepositoryViewModel;
if (gvm != null)
gvm.AddToRepo();
You can then simply call AddToRepo when you need to add the view model's underlying model to the repository.
Perhaps not the most elegant solution, however if encapsulation is what's worrying you, then you need to ensure that your dependencies are properly managed.
"If the Model-inside-ViewModel is public, it violates encapsulation"
Your assertion above is completely wrong and is killing your code.
By setting the Model property in ViewModel as private, you are forced to repeat your self ( code smells ), as you will need to define in your ViewModel, the same properties as you did for your Model, effectively transforming it into a Model class that mimics the Model it is supposed to expose to the View.
In MVVM the ViewModel role is to provide the View with all the presentation data and logic that it needs and for sure the Model is fundamental part of this data, by hidding it from the View you are killing MVVM.
I'm writing a WPF application and I'm currently refactoring some reused code to a base ViewModel Class which my other viewmodels can inherit from.
One Property field on this base class is
public class MessageParentBase
{
MessageParentBase() {}
public string Name;
}
internal ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase> _GridData = new ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase>();
I have a subsequent property declaration
public ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase> GridData
{
get { return _GridData; }
set { _GridData = value; }
}
This works great and everything my issue is that the inerited classes actually use the follow class
Public class ChatMessage : MessageParentBase
{
public string Message;
}
and the view contains a grid of data which is bound to this GridData property but the column which should be bound to the Message field from the ChatMessage class is blank and the fields found in the MessageParentBase class are populated.
So I presume there is an issue with the view not knowing to cast up to the ChatMessage from the MessageParentBase class.
Can I inform the view that the objects will be of the type "ChatMessage".
I did try moving the property declaration up to the inherited viewmodel as
public ObservableCollection<ChatMessage> GridData
{
get { return _GridData; }
set { _GridData = value; }
}
but this gives me the following error:-
Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Collections.ObjectModel.ObservableCollection' to 'System.Collections.ObjectModel.ObservableCollection'
Do I need to cast at the view level or can I change the viewmodels to implement this better?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Emlyn
Change the collection to this:
public ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase> GridData { get; set; }
then add into your constructor
this.GridData = new ObservableCollection<MessageParentBase>();
Since WPF uses reflection to retrieve bound data from the data context it should be able to get the values of the derived classes stored in that collection.
Also when you run your application check the output window with Debug selected, the XAML engine will output any binding errors there.
Your ViewModel should contain a list with the type that your grid will show (in this case, the ChatMessage type). You can still use the inheritance to call common methods, but the binded list must be of the ChatMessage type
I'm writing an application where I'm attempting to use an MVVM style architecture to handle my data binding (although I'm not using a MVVM specific library, such as MVVM Light). I've got a class which stores all of the information that my application requires, and then each of the screens is assigned a view model to its DataContext, which simply selects the values required for the specific screen, formatting the data if necessary.
As an example, the main data store looks something like this:
class DataStore {
int a, b, c;
string d;
DateTime e;
}
And then the view model allocated to a specific screen, which only uses several of the properties, is something like
class MainScreenViewModel {
public int data1 { get { return App.DataStore.a * App.DataStore.c } }
public int data2 { get { return App.DataStore.e.Day } }
}
This seems to work fine, when the page loads the data bindings are populated as they should be. However, they do not update automatically when the page loads. I've implemented INotifyPropertyChanged on the DataStore, but it seems that the change event doesn't bubble through to be reflected in the view model. I'm sure I'm going about this a really bad way, so if anyone could help point me in the right direction I'd be very grateful. I've read a stack of guides online, but I seem to be confusing myself more and more!
You have to implement INotifyPropertyChanged and raise PropertyChanged on your VM. In order to do this you will have to listen for DataStore.PropertyChanged. Sample:
class MainScreenViewModel {
public int data1 { get { return App.DataStore.a * App.DataStore.c } }
public int data2 { get { return App.DataStore.e.Day } }
public MainScreenViewModel()
{
App.DataStore.PropertyChanged += (sender, e) =>
{
if (e.PropertyName == "a" || e.PropertyName == "c")
RaisePropertyChanged("data1");
if (e.PropertyName == "e")
RaisePropertyChanged("data2");
};
}
private void RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
// raise it
}
}
The only part not covered here is the scenario when e.Day will change in DataStore.
Your approach itself is not the bad and is definitely good enough to start with.
You're binding to the MainScreenViewModel class, so it is that class that needs to implement INotifyPropertyChanged for the UI to get updated when the underlying data gets updated.
You could either move the logic into MainScreenViewModel and raise property change notification there, or handle the PropertyChanged event on DataStore in MainScreenViewModel and raise property changed notification for the appropriate properties.
I am implementing a WPF based application using MVVMfor the UI.
I have a ViewModel that wraps each editable Model that can be edited. The VM contains all the logic for handling error notifications, "is dirty" management and so forth ..
This design supports well CRUD schenarios for simple domain Model objects that are anemic, that is, do not contain any logic.
Now, I am facing a more tricky problem cause I have a domain Model that contains logic and that logic can change the internal state of the domain Model.
Do someone have already faced this scenario ? If so, do you have some advices to handle this correctly ?
Riana
Here is how I usually deal with it:
The ViewModel layer is made of types that belong to this layer, meaning I don't ever directly use my business objects inside of a ViewModel. I map my business objects to ViewModel objects that may or may not be the exact same shape minus the behaviors. It can be argued that this violates Don't Repeat Yourself, but doing so allows you to adhere to the Single Responsibility Principle. In my opinion, SRP should usually trump DRY. The ViewModel exists to serve the view, and the model exists to serve business rules / behavior.
I create a facade/service layer that takes and returns ViewModels as arguments, but maps the ViewModels to-and-from their corresponding business object versions. This, way the non-anemic objects won't impose non view logic on the ViewModel
The dependencies would look like this:
ViewModel <--> Facade/ServiceLayer --> Business Objects
I think it is important to keep this in mind if you want to unleash the full potential of MVVM: The ViewModel is the model/abstraction of the view, not the model presented to the view.
Try using Command pattern. Your screen should be design not to edit an entity but to perform an action (command) on an entity. If you follow that principle when designing your screens, your ViewModel will have properties that should be mapped to a command object. Then, the command will be send to an (remote) facade of the domain model.
ViewModels for displaying the data could be mapped directly to the database (bypassing the domain model altogether) so that you don't need to put nasty getters in the domain model classes.
If the domain model is non-anemic, you will need to use events to communicate internal changes in the Model back to the ViewModel. That way you don't have to worry about keeping track of what operations could potentially make your VM out-of-sync with the model.
Here's a simple example:
First, a sample model:
public class NonAnemicModel
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_name == value)
return;
_name = value;
OnNameChanged(EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
public event EventHandler NameChanged;
protected virtual void OnNameChanged(EventArgs e)
{
if (NameChanged != null)
NameChanged(this, e);
}
public void PerformNameCalculation(int chars)
{
//example of a complex logic that inadvertently changes the name
this.Name = new String('Z', chars); //makes a name of Z's
}
}
And here's a sample ViewModel:
public class MyViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private NonAnemicModel _model;
public NonAnemicModel Model
{
get { return _model; }
set
{
_model = value;
_model.NameChanged += (sender, args) => NotifyPropertyChanged("UserName");
}
}
public string UserName
{
get { return this.Model.Name; }
set { this.Model.Name = value; }
}
//this command would call out to the PerformNameCalculation method on the Model.
public ICommand PerformNameCalculation { get; private set; }
}
Notice that the PropertyChanged event is raised when the Name on the model changes. That way, regardless of whether the UserName setter was used, or the PerformNameCalculation command was used, the ViewModel stays in sync. The big downside to this is that you have to add many more events to your Model, but I've found that having these events in place is usually very helpful in the long run. Just be careful about memory leaks with events!
I would like to use the DataGrid.CanUserAddRows = true feature. Unfortunately, it seems to work only with concrete classes which have a default constructor. My collection of business objects doesn't provide a default constructor.
I'm looking for a way to register a factory that knows how to create the objects for the DataGrid. I had a look at the DataGrid and the ListCollectionView but none of them seems to support my scenario.
The problem:
"I'm looking for a way to register a factory that knows how to create the objects for the DataGrid". (Because my collection of business objects doesn't provide a default constructor.)
The symptoms:
If we set DataGrid.CanUserAddRows = true and then bind a collection of items to the DataGrid where the item doesn't have a default constructor, then the DataGrid doesn't show a 'new item row'.
The causes:
When a collection of items is bound to any WPF ItemControl, WPF wraps the collection in either:
a BindingListCollectionView when the collection being bound is a BindingList<T>. BindingListCollectionView implements IEditableCollectionView but doesn't implement IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem.
a ListCollectionView when the collection being bound is any other collection. ListCollectionView implements IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem (and hence IEditableCollectionView).
For option 2) the DataGrid delegates creation of new items to the ListCollectionView. ListCollectionView internally tests for the existence of a default constructor and disables AddNew if one doesn't exist. Here's the relevant code from ListCollectionView using DotPeek.
public bool CanAddNewItem (method from IEditableCollectionView)
{
get
{
if (!this.IsEditingItem)
return !this.SourceList.IsFixedSize;
else
return false;
}
}
bool CanConstructItem
{
private get
{
if (!this._isItemConstructorValid)
this.EnsureItemConstructor();
return this._itemConstructor != (ConstructorInfo) null;
}
}
There doesn't seem to be an easy way to override this behaviour.
For option 1) the situation is a lot better. The DataGrid delegates creation of new items to the BindingListView, which in turn delegates to BindingList. BindingList<T> also checks for the existence of a default constructor, but fortunately BindingList<T> also allows the client to set the AllowNew property and attach an event handler for supplying a new item. See the solution later, but here's the relevant code in BindingList<T>
public bool AllowNew
{
get
{
if (this.userSetAllowNew || this.allowNew)
return this.allowNew;
else
return this.AddingNewHandled;
}
set
{
bool allowNew = this.AllowNew;
this.userSetAllowNew = true;
this.allowNew = value;
if (allowNew == value)
return;
this.FireListChanged(ListChangedType.Reset, -1);
}
}
Non-solutions:
Support by DataGrid (not available)
It would reasonable to expect the DataGrid to allow the client to attach a callback, through which the DataGrid would request a default new item, just like BindingList<T> above. This would give the client the first crack at creating a new item when one is required.
Unfortunately this isn't supported directly from the DataGrid, even in .NET 4.5.
.NET 4.5 does appear to have a new event 'AddingNewItem' that wasn't available previously, but this only lets you know a new item is being added.
Work arounds:
Business object created by a tool in the same assembly: use a partial class
This scenario seems very unlikely, but imagine that Entity Framework created its entity classes with no default constructor (not likely since they wouldn't be serializable), then we could simply create a partial class with a default constructor. Problem solved.
Business object is in another assembly, and isn't sealed: create a super-type of the business object.
Here we can inherit from the business object type and add a default constructor.
This initially seemed like a good idea, but on second thoughts this may require more work than is necessary because we need to copy data generated by the business layer into our super-type version of the business object.
We would need code like
class MyBusinessObject : BusinessObject
{
public MyBusinessObject(BusinessObject bo){ ... copy properties of bo }
public MyBusinessObject(){}
}
And then some LINQ to project between lists of these objects.
Business object is in another assembly, and is sealed (or not): encapsulate the business object.
This is much easier
class MyBusinessObject
{
public BusinessObject{ get; private set; }
public MyBusinessObject(BusinessObject bo){ BusinessObject = bo; }
public MyBusinessObject(){}
}
Now all we need to do is use some LINQ to project between lists of these objects, and then bind to MyBusinessObject.BusinessObject in the DataGrid. No messy wrapping of properties or copying of values required.
The solution: (hurray found one)
Use BindingList<T>
If we wrap our collection of business objects in a BindingList<BusinessObject> and then bind the DataGrid to this, with a few lines of code our problem is solved and the DataGrid will appropriately show a new item row.
public void BindData()
{
var list = new BindingList<BusinessObject>( GetBusinessObjects() );
list.AllowNew = true;
list.AddingNew += (sender, e) =>
{e.NewObject = new BusinessObject(... some default params ...);};
}
Other solutions
implement IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem on top of an existing collection type. Probably a lot of work.
inherit from ListCollectionView and override functionality. I was partially successful trying this, probably can be done with more effort.
I've found another solution to this problem. In my case, my objects need to be initialized using a factory, and there isn't really any way to get around that.
I couldn't use BindingList<T> because my collection must support grouping, sorting, and filtering, which BindingList<T> does not support.
I solved the problem by using DataGrid's AddingNewItem event. This almost entirely undocumented event not only tells you a new item is being added, but also allows lets you choose which item is being added. AddingNewItem fires before anything else; the NewItem property of the EventArgs is simply null.
Even if you provide a handler for the event, DataGrid will refuse to allow the user to add rows if the class doesn't have a default constructor. However, bizarrely (but thankfully) if you do have one, and set the NewItem property of the AddingNewItemEventArgs, it will never be called.
If you choose to do this, you can make use of attributes such as [Obsolete("Error", true)] and [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] in order to make sure no one ever invokes the constructor. You can also have the constructor body throw an exception
Decompiling the control lets us see what's happening in there.
private object AddNewItem()
{
this.UpdateNewItemPlaceholder(true);
object newItem1 = (object) null;
IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem collectionViewAddNewItem = (IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem) this.Items;
if (collectionViewAddNewItem.CanAddNewItem)
{
AddingNewItemEventArgs e = new AddingNewItemEventArgs();
this.OnAddingNewItem(e);
newItem1 = e.NewItem;
}
object newItem2 = newItem1 != null ? collectionViewAddNewItem.AddNewItem(newItem1) : this.EditableItems.AddNew();
if (newItem2 != null)
this.OnInitializingNewItem(new InitializingNewItemEventArgs(newItem2));
CommandManager.InvalidateRequerySuggested();
return newItem2;
}
As we can see, in version 4.5, the DataGrid does indeed make use of AddNewItem. The contents of CollectionListView.CanAddNewItem are simply:
public bool CanAddNewItem
{
get
{
if (!this.IsEditingItem)
return !this.SourceList.IsFixedSize;
else
return false;
}
}
So this doesn't explain why we we still need to have a constructor (even if it is a dummy) in order for the add row option to appear. I believe the answer lies in some code that determines the visibility of the NewItemPlaceholder row using CanAddNew rather than CanAddNewItem. This might be considered some sort of bug.
I had a look at IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem and it seems to be adding this functionality.
From MSDN
The IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem
interface enables application
developers to specify what type of
object to add to a collection. This
interface extends
IEditableCollectionView, so you can
add, edit, and remove items in a
collection.
IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem adds
the AddNewItem method, which takes an
object that is added to the
collection. This method is useful when
the collection and objects that you
want to add have one or more of the
following characteristics:
The objects in the CollectionView are different types.
The objects do not have a default constructor.
The object already exists.
You want to add a null object to the collection.
Although at Bea Stollnitz blog, you can read the following
The limitation of not being able to add a new item when the source has no
default constructor is very well
understood by the team. WPF 4.0 Beta 2
has a new feature that brings us a
step closer to having a solution: the
introduction of
IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem
containing the AddNewItem method. You
can read the MSDN documentation about
this feature. The sample in MSDN shows
how to use it when creating your own
custom UI to add a new item (using a
ListBox to display the data and a
dialog box to enter the new item).
From what I can tell, DataGrid doesn’t
yet use this method though (although
it’s a bit hard to be 100% sure
because Reflector doesn’t decompile
4.0 Beta 2 bits).
That answer is from 2009 so maybe it's usable for the DataGrid now
The simplest way I could suggest to provide wrapper for your class without default constructor, in which constructor for source class will be called.
For example you have this class without default constructor:
/// <summary>
/// Complicate class without default constructor.
/// </summary>
public class ComplicateClass
{
public ComplicateClass(string name, string surname)
{
Name = name;
Surname = surname;
}
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
}
Write a wrapper for it:
/// <summary>
/// Wrapper for complicated class.
/// </summary>
public class ComplicateClassWraper
{
public ComplicateClassWraper()
{
_item = new ComplicateClass("def_name", "def_surname");
}
public ComplicateClassWraper(ComplicateClass item)
{
_item = item;
}
public ComplicateClass GetItem() { return _item; }
public string Name
{
get { return _item.Name; }
set { _item.Name = value; }
}
public string Surname
{
get { return _item.Surname; }
set { _item.Surname = value; }
}
ComplicateClass _item;
}
Codebehind.
In your ViewModel you need to create wrapper collection for your source collection, which will handle item adding/removing in datagrid.
public MainWindow()
{
// Prepare collection with complicated objects.
_sourceCollection = new List<ComplicateClass>();
_sourceCollection.Add(new ComplicateClass("a1", "b1"));
_sourceCollection.Add(new ComplicateClass("a2", "b2"));
// Do wrapper collection.
WrappedSourceCollection = new ObservableCollection<ComplicateClassWraper>();
foreach (var item in _sourceCollection)
WrappedSourceCollection.Add(new ComplicateClassWraper(item));
// Each time new item was added to grid need add it to source collection.
// Same on delete.
WrappedSourceCollection.CollectionChanged += new NotifyCollectionChangedEventHandler(Items_CollectionChanged);
InitializeComponent();
DataContext = this;
}
void Items_CollectionChanged(object sender, NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Action == NotifyCollectionChangedAction.Add)
foreach (ComplicateClassWraper wrapper in e.NewItems)
_sourceCollection.Add(wrapper.GetItem());
else if (e.Action == NotifyCollectionChangedAction.Remove)
foreach (ComplicateClassWraper wrapper in e.OldItems)
_sourceCollection.Remove(wrapper.GetItem());
}
private List<ComplicateClass> _sourceCollection;
public ObservableCollection<ComplicateClassWraper> WrappedSourceCollection { get; set; }
}
And finally, XAML code:
<DataGrid CanUserAddRows="True" AutoGenerateColumns="False"
ItemsSource="{Binding Path=Items}">
<DataGrid.Columns>
<DataGridTextColumn Header="Name" Binding="{Binding Path=Name}"/>
<DataGridTextColumn Header="SecondName" Binding="{Binding Path=Surname}"/>
</DataGrid.Columns>
</DataGrid>
I just wanted to provide an alternate solution to using a BindingList. In my situtation, the Business objects was held in an IEntitySet in a portable project (Silverlight), which did not support IBindingList.
The solution, first and foremost, is to subclass the grid, and overwrite the coerce callback for CanUserAddRows to use IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem:
public class DataGridEx : DataGrid
{
static DataGridEx()
{
CanUserAddRowsProperty.OverrideMetadata(typeof(DataGridEx), new FrameworkPropertyMetadata(true, null, CoerceCanUserAddRows));
}
private static object CoerceCanUserAddRows(DependencyObject sender, object newValue)
{
var dataGrid = (DataGrid)sender;
var canAddValue= (bool)newValue;
if (canAddValue)
{
if (dataGrid.IsReadOnly || !dataGrid.IsEnabled)
{
return false;
}
if (dataGrid.Items is IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem v && v.CanAddNewItem == false)
{
// The view does not support inserting new items
return false;
}
}
return canAddValue;
}
}
And then use the AddingNewItem event to create the item:
dataGrid.AddingNewItem += (sender, args) => args.NewItem = new BusinessObject(args);
And if you care for the details, here is the reason why it is a problem in the first place. The coerce callback in the framework looks like this:
private static bool OnCoerceCanUserAddOrDeleteRows(DataGrid dataGrid, bool baseValue, bool canUserAddRowsProperty)
{
// Only when the base value is true do we need to validate that the user
// can actually add or delete rows.
if (baseValue)
{
if (dataGrid.IsReadOnly || !dataGrid.IsEnabled)
{
// Read-only/disabled DataGrids cannot be modified.
return false;
}
else
{
if ((canUserAddRowsProperty && !dataGrid.EditableItems.CanAddNew) ||
(!canUserAddRowsProperty && !dataGrid.EditableItems.CanRemove))
{
// The collection view does not allow the add or delete action
return false;
}
}
}
return baseValue;
}
You see how it gets the IEditableCollectionView.CanAddNew? That means that it only enables adding when the view can insert and construct an item. The funny thing is that when we want to add a new item, it checks the IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem.CanAddNewItem instead, which only asks if the view supports inserting new items (not creating):
object newItem = null;
IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem ani = (IEditableCollectionViewAddNewItem)Items;
if (ani.CanAddNewItem)
{
AddingNewItemEventArgs e = new AddingNewItemEventArgs();
OnAddingNewItem(e);
newItem = e.NewItem;
}