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.
See the next post. This original one question content has been removed, as doesn't have any sense. Briefly, I asked how to bind XML (which I generated by mistake while parsing DLL assembly) to TreeView using XmlDataProvider in MVVM way. But later I understood that this approach was wrong, and I switched to generation of data entity model (just write classes which represent all the entities I would like to expose in the tree) instead of XML.
So, the result in the next post. Currently from time to time I update this "article", so F5, and
Enjoy reading!
Introduction
The right way I had found reading this article
It's a long story, most of you just can skip it :) But those, who want to understand the problem and solution, must read this all !
I'm QA, and some time ago had become responsible for Automation of the product I clicks. Fortunately, this automaton takes place not in some Testing Tool, but in Visual Studio, so it is maximally close to development.
For our automation we use a framework which consist of MbUnit (Gallio as runner) and of MINT (addition to MbUnit, which is written by the customer we work with). MbUnit gives us Test Fixtures and Tests, and MINT adds additional smaller layer -- Actions inside tests. Example. Fixture is called 'FilteringFixture'. It consist of amount of tests like 'TestingFilteringById', or 'TestingFilteringWithSpecialChars', etc. Each test consist of actions, which are atomic unit of our test. Example of actions are - 'Open app (parameter)', 'OpenFilterDialog', etc.
We already have a lot of tests, which contain a lot of actions, it's a mess. They use internal API of the product we QA. Also, we start investigation a new Automation approach - UI automation via Microsoft UI Automation (sorry for tautology). So the necessity of some "exporter", or "reporter" tool became severe for managers.
Some time ago I have got a task to develop some application, which can parse a DLL (which contains all the fixtures, tests and actions), and export its structure in the human readable format (TXT, HTML, CSV, XML, any other). But, right after that, I went to vacation (2 weeks).
It happens so, that my girlfriend went to her family until vacation (she also got it), and I remained at home so alone. Thinking what me to do all this time (2 weeks), I remember about that "write exporter tool task" and how long I have been planning to start learning WPF. So, I decided to make my task during vacation, and also dress a application to WPF. At that time I heard something about MVVM, and I decided to implement it using pure MVVM.
DLL which can parse DLL with fixrtures etc had been written rather fast (~1-2 days). After that I had started with WPF, and this article will show you how it ended.
I have spent a major part of my vacation (almost 8 days!), trying to sorted it out in my head and code, and finally, it is done (almost). My girlfriend would not believe what I was doing all this time, but I have a proof!
Sharing my solution step by step in pseudo code, to help others avoid similar problems. This answer is more looks like tutorial =) (Really?). If you are interested what were the most complicated things while learning WPF from scratch, I would say -- make it all really MVVM and f*g TreeView binding!
If you want an archived file with solution, I can give it a bit later, just when I have made a decision, that it is worth of that. One limitation, I'm not sure I may share the MINT.dll, which brings Actions, as it has been developed by the customer of our company. But I can just remove it, and share the application, which can display information about Fixtures and Tests only, but not about actions.
Boastful words. With just a little C# / WinForms / HTML background and no practice I have been able to implement this version of the application in almost 1 week (and write this article). So, impossible is possible! Just take a vacation like me, and spend it to WPF learning!
Step by step tutorial (w/o attached files yet)
Short repetition of the task:
Some time ago I have got a task to develop an application, which can parse a DLL (which contains test fixtures, test methods and actions - units of our unit testing based automation framework), and export its structure in the human readable format (TXT, HTML, CSV, XML, any other). I decided to implement it using WPF and pure MVVM (both were absolutely new things for me). The 2 most difficult problems for me became MVVM approach itself, and then MVVM binding to TreeView control. I skip the part about MVVM division, it's a theme for separate article. The steps below are about binding to TreeView in MVVM way.
Not so important: Create DLL which can open DLL with unit tests and finds fixtures, test methods and actions (more smaller level of unit test, written in our company) using reflection. If you are interested in how it had been done, look here: Parsing function / method content using Reflection
DLL: Separated classes are created for both fixtures, tests and actions (data model, entity model?).We'll use them for binding. You should think by yourself, what will be an entity model for your tree. Main idea - each level of tree should be exposed by appropriate class, with those properties, which help you to represent the model in the tree (and, ideally, will take right place in your MVVM, as model or part of the model). In my case, I was interested in entity name, list of children and ordinal number. Ordinal number is a number, which represents order of an entity in the code inside DLL. It helps me show ordinal number in the TreeView, still not sure it's right approach, but it works!
public class MintFixutre : IMintEntity
{
private readonly string _name;
private readonly int _ordinalNumber;
private readonly List<MintTest> _tests = new List<MintTest>();
public MintFixutre(string fixtureName, int ordinalNumber)
{
_name = fixtureName;
if (ordinalNumber <= 0)
throw new ArgumentException("Ordinal number must begin from 1");
_ordinalNumber = ordinalNumber;
}
public List<MintTest> Tests
{
get { return _tests; }
}
public string Name { get { return _name; }}
public bool IsParent { get { return true; } }
public int OrdinalNumber { get { return _ordinalNumber; } }
}
public class MintTest : IMintEntity
{
private readonly string _name;
private readonly int _ordinalNumber;
private readonly List<MintAction> _actions = new List<MintAction>();
public MintTest(string testName, int ordinalNumber)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(testName))
throw new ArgumentException("Test name cannot be null or space filled");
_name = testName;
if (ordinalNumber <= 0)
throw new ArgumentException("OrdinalNumber must begin from 1");
_ordinalNumber = ordinalNumber;
}
public List<MintAction> Actions
{
get { return _actions; }
}
public string Name { get { return _name; } }
public bool IsParent { get { return true; } }
public int OrdinalNumber { get { return _ordinalNumber; } }
}
public class MintAction : IMintEntity
{
private readonly string _name;
private readonly int _ordinalNumber;
public MintAction(string actionName, int ordinalNumber)
{
_name = actionName;
if (ordinalNumber <= 0)
throw new ArgumentException("Ordinal numbers must begins from 1");
_ordinalNumber = ordinalNumber;
}
public string Name { get { return _name; } }
public bool IsParent { get { return false; } }
public int OrdinalNumber { get { return _ordinalNumber; } }
}
BTW, I also created an interface below, which implement all the entities. Such interface can help you in the future. Still not sure, should I was also add there Childrens property of List<IMintEntity> type, or something like that?
public interface IMintEntity
{
string Name { get; }
bool IsParent { get; }
int OrdinalNumber { get; }
}
DLL - building data model: DLL has a method which opens DLL with unit tests and enumerating data. During enumeration, it builds a data model like below. Real method example is given, reflection core + Mono.Reflection.dll are used, don't be confused with complexity. All that you need - look how the method fills _fixtures list with entities.
private void ParseDllToEntityModel()
{
_fixutres = new List<MintFixutre>();
// enumerating Fixtures
int f = 1;
foreach (Type fixture in AssemblyTests.GetTypes().Where(t => t.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(TestFixtureAttribute), false).Length > 0))
{
var tempFixture = new MintFixutre(fixture.Name, f);
// enumerating Test Methods
int t = 1;
foreach (var testMethod in fixture.GetMethods().Where(m => m.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(TestAttribute), false).Length > 0))
{
// filtering Actions
var instructions = testMethod.GetInstructions().Where(
i => i.OpCode.Name.Equals("newobj") && ((ConstructorInfo)i.Operand).DeclaringType.IsSubclassOf(typeof(BaseAction))).ToList();
var tempTest = new MintTest(testMethod.Name, t);
// enumerating Actions
for ( int a = 1; a <= instructions.Count; a++ )
{
Instruction action = instructions[a-1];
string actionName = (action.Operand as ConstructorInfo).DeclaringType.Name;
var tempAction = new MintAction(actionName, a);
tempTest.Actions.Add(tempAction);
}
tempFixture.Tests.Add(tempTest);
t++;
}
_fixutres.Add(tempFixture);
f++;
}
}
DLL: Public property Fixtures of the List<MintFixutre> type is created to return just created data model ( List of Fixtures, which contain lists of tests, which contains lists of Actions ). This will be our binding source for TreeView.
public List<MintFixutre> Fixtures
{
get { return _fixtures; }
}
ViewModel of MainWindow (with TreeView inside): Contains object / class from DLL which can parse unit tests DLLs. Also exposes Fixtures public property from the DLL of List<MintFixutre> type. We will bind to it from XAML of MainWindow. Something like that (simplified):
var _exporter = MySuperDllReaderExporterClass ();
// public property of ViewModel for TreeView, which returns property from #4
public List<MintFixture> Fixtures { get { return _exporter.Fixtures; }}
// Initializing exporter class, ParseDllToEntityModel() is called inside getter
// (from step #3). Cool, we have entity model for binding.
_exporter.PathToDll = #"open file dialog can help";
// Notifying all those how are bound to the Fixtures property, there are work for them, TreeView, are u listening?
// will be faced later in this article, anticipating events
OnPropertyChanged("Fixtures");
XAML of MainWindow - Setup data templates: Inside a Grid, which contains TreeView, we create <Grid.Resources> section, which contains a set of templates for our TreeViewItems. HierarchicalDataTemplate (Fixtures and Tests) is used for those who have child items, and DataTemplate is used for "leaf" items (Actions). For each template, we specify which its Content (text, TreeViewItem image, etc.), ItemsSource (in case of this item has children, e.g. for Fixtures it is {Binding Path=Tests}), and ItemTemplate (again, only in case this item has children, here we set linkage between templates - FixtureTemplate uses TestTemplate for its children, TestTemplate uses ActionTemplate for its children, Action template does not use anything, it is a leaf!). IMPORTANT: Don't forget, that in order to "link" "one" template to "another", the "another" template must be defined in XAML above the "one"! (just enumerating my own blunders :) )
XAML - TreeView linkage: We setup TreeView with: linking with data model from ViewModel (remember public property?) and with just prepared templates, which represent content, appearance, data sources and nesting of tree items! One more important note. Don't define your ViewModel as "static" resource inside XAML, like <Window.Resources><MyViewModel x:Key="DontUseMeForThat" /></Window.Resources>. If you do so, then you won't be able to notify it on property changed. Why? Static resource is static resource, it initializes ones, and after that remains immutable. I might be wrong here, but it was one of my blunders. So for TreeView use ItemsSource="{Binding Fixtures}" instead of ItemsSource="{StaticResource myStaticViewModel}"
ViewModel - ViewModelBase - Property Changed: Almost all. Stop! When user opens an application, then initially TreeView is empty of course, as user hasn't opened any DLL yet! We must wait until user opens a DLL, and only then perform binding. It is done via OnPropertyChanged event. To make life easier, all my ViewModels are inherited from ViewModelBase, which right exposes this functionality to all my ViewModel.
public class ViewModelBase : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
OnPropertyChanged(new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(PropertyChangedEventArgs args)
{
var handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null)
handler(this, args);
}
}
XAML - OnPropertyChanged and commanding. User clicks a button to opens DLL which contains unit tests data. As we using MVVM, then click is handled via commanding. At the end of the OpenDllExecuted handler OnPropertyChanged("Fixtures") is executed, notifying the Tree, that the property, to which it is bind to has been changed, and that now is time to refresh itself. RelayCommand helper class can be taken for example from there). BTW, as I know, there are some helper libraries and toolkits exist Something like that happens in the XAML:
And ViewModel - Commanding
private ICommand _openDllCommand;
//...
public ICommand OpenDllCommand
{
get { return _openDllCommand ?? (_openDllCommand = new RelayCommand(OpenDllExecuted, OpenDllCanExecute)); }
}
//...
// decides, when the <OpenDll> button is enabled or not
private bool OpenDllCanExecute(object obj)
{
return true; // always true for Open DLL button
}
//...
// in fact, handler
private void OpenDllExecuted(object obj)
{
var openDlg = new OpenFileDialog { ... };
_pathToDll = openDlg.FileName;
_exporter.PathToDll = _pathToDll;
// Notifying TreeView via binding that the property <Fixtures> has been changed,
// thereby forcing the tree to refresh itself
OnPropertyChanged("Fixtures");
}
Final UI (but not final for me, a lot of things should be done!). Extended WPF toolkit was used somewhere: http://wpftoolkit.codeplex.com/
I have to develop a custom collection of objects. The reason is two fold, I need to be able to assign an internal name to the collection and the collection also needs to implement some abstract methods to be treated like any other entity that I have.
So I created an EntityList class. Below is a snippet of the class. It contains a id and a list of entities, plus a bunch of methods. My question is this, so far I have put in the list management methods that I require, such as Add, Insert, Remove and Clear. If you have an EntityList reference called myEntityList you could perform something like myEntityList.Add(newEntity). I do like this approach, but really these methods are just handing off the work to the list. I could also not implement any of these methods and you could perform the same action as above by using myEntityList.Items.Add(newEntity). However, here you are directly accessing a method of a property of the object. I wanted to remove the Items property altogether, however I often need to iterate through the list using a foreach and for that I need access to the actual list.
Here is my class definition, it does not have the overrides to the abstact methods included.
class EntityList
{
String entityId;
List<EntityBase> _entities;
public EntityList()
{
_entities = new List<EntityBase>();
}
public List<EntityBase> Items
{
get { return _entities; }
//set { _entities = value; }
}
public void Add(EntityBase entity)
{
_entities.Add(entity);
}
public void Insert(int index, EntityBase entity)
{
_entities.Insert(index, entity);
}
public void Remove(EntityBase entity)
{
_entities.Remove(entity);
}
public void Clear()
{
_entities.Clear();
}
}
Am I violating some cardinal rules here? How should I manage the list when it is a member of another class?
Just inherit from List<EntityBase> then you won't need to redeclare and implement the list methods.
i.e.
class EntityList : List<EntityBase>
{
String entityId;
//add your extra methods.
}
you should make your class implement IList<EntityBase> (or at the very least, IEnumerable<EntityBase>) this way, you can treat it just like a "normal" list. Before you do this, though, you should probably read the documentation and decide which is best for your needs.
MSDN on IList is here
MSDN on IEnumerable is here
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 have two viewmodel classes called ChangePwdViewModel.cs and ExpiringPwdViewModel.cs.
ChangPwd.xaml binds to ChangePwdViewModel and ExpiringPwd.xaml binds to ExpiringPwdViewModel.
Both have the property as below.
private string _message;
public string Message
{
get { return _message; }
set { _message = value; OnPropertyChanged("Message"); }
}
In each class, there's a function called ValidatePwd() to validate the new password.
In this function, Message property is updated.
Eg.
if (IsAlphaNumeric(this.NewPassword) == false || IsAlphaNumeric(this.CfmPassword) == false)
{
this.Message = "Invalid new password, only characters and numbers are accepted, password must contain at least one character and one number";
this.ResetPasswordFields();
return false;
}
I want to create a common class to write this function and used by two viewmodel. But, How can I update the Message Property of the viewmodels from this class?
How about putting it in a base class:
class ViewModelBase
{
private string _message;
public string Message
{
get { return _message; }
set { _message = value; OnPropertyChanged("Message"); }
}
public bool VerifyPassword(string newPassword)
{
....
}
}
class ChangePwdViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
}
class ExpiringPwdViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
}
Update:
If you can't use a base class because your view models already have a base class then you could use an interface as suggested by others. However this means that you will still have to implement the interface in all your view model classes so you don't gain that much in terms of avoiding multiple implementations (except that you have a contract for your view models then which is usually a good thing to have).
You can achieve some kind of "multiple inheritance" in C# by using a tool like Dynamic Proxy which allows you to create mixins. So you could implement the Message property and password verification in one class and then create a mixin proxy which merges the view model with that implementation. It's not as nice as you will have to create all your view model instances via the proxy generator but it can be made to work. Have a look at this tutorial if it sounds like an option for you.
You could have the two ViewModel classes implement a common interface, say IMessage that implemented a single property - Message.
Then your common class or a function would take a parameter of type IMessage that it could use to update the message.
I would suggest to avoid base classes (could cause potential design issues in future) in such cases, I would rather suggest to pass through constructor an algorithm of validation, smth like this:
public class MyViewModel
{
public MyViewModel(Func<bool> validationAlgorithm)
{
// ... save function to use later for a validation
}
}