Recently I answered a question How to Bind to window's close button the X-button with what I thought was an MVVM solution. Please don't focus on actual question there, because that's not what's bothering me. I wouldn't even use my solution there in that particular case. I would most certainly use #ChrisW's solution.
Then response from #SpikeX appeared and now I am confused. But I have to thank him for that. I can't stop thinking about that, because untill now I was probably thinking about MVVM in wrong way.
So I started research:
Close Window from ViewModel
Basic concepts of MVVM— what should a ViewModel do?
and so on...
As you can see I am not the only person in the universe who closed window from ViewModel. But can I really do that? Or is it really true that I should not use window in ViewModel. Is MVVM really so strict about this? Is really my solution breaking an MVVM pattern?
Well, in my opinion the viewmodel should be completely isolated from the client technology in which it is being used.
Since you call the close method on the actual Window instance, you need a reference to a client specific assembly (in this case WPF), which pretty much makes it impossible to reuse that viewmodel for anything else.
If you wanted to make both WPF, Silverlight, Windows Phone, Windows Store App, etc. clients, you would have no chance of using the same viewmodel for them all, since Windows Phone probably doesn't know what a WPF window is.
Also, unit-testing viewmodels becomes more cumbersome when you have references to actual view elements in there.
So instead of referencing the window directly, you could abstract it away in some kind of view adapter.
If the viewmodel only knows about an interface like this:
public interface IView
{
void Show();
void Close();
}
...each of your clients can create their own implementation of it, and inject it into the viewmodel so it does the right thing on any given client.
The point is that the viewmodel has no knowledge of the actual view. Everything is hidden in the implementation of the interface.
Well, yes your solution is breaking the pattern. Biggest disadvantage is, that you cannot completely test the VM and the logic, which is interfering with the closing of the window. But as always you have to consider, if it's worth the effort to implement a workaround.
So if you really want to stick to MVVM, you could use the solution I posted in the first linked SO post. I copied the essential part of my post in here.
Quote
<Window x:Class="AC.Frontend.Controls.DialogControl.Dialog"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:DialogControl="clr-namespace:AC.Frontend.Controls.DialogControl"
xmlns:hlp="clr-namespace:AC.Frontend.Helper"
MinHeight="150" MinWidth="300" ResizeMode="NoResize" SizeToContent="WidthAndHeight"
WindowStartupLocation="CenterScreen" Title="{Binding Title}"
hlp:AttachedProperties.DialogResult="{Binding DialogResult}" WindowStyle="ToolWindow" ShowInTaskbar="True"
Language="{Binding UiCulture, Source={StaticResource Strings}}">
<!-- A lot more stuff here -->
</Window>
As you can see, I'm declaring the namespace xmlns:hlp="clr-namespace:AC.Frontend.Helper" first and afterwards the binding hlp:AttachedProperties.DialogResult="{Binding DialogResult}".
[...]
public class AttachedProperties
{
#region DialogResult
public static readonly DependencyProperty DialogResultProperty =
DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached("DialogResult", typeof (bool?), typeof (AttachedProperties), new PropertyMetadata(default(bool?), OnDialogResultChanged));
private static void OnDialogResultChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
var wnd = d as Window;
if (wnd == null)
return;
wnd.DialogResult = (bool?) e.NewValue;
}
public static bool? GetDialogResult(DependencyObject dp)
{
if (dp == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dp");
return (bool?)dp.GetValue(DialogResultProperty);
}
public static void SetDialogResult(DependencyObject dp, object value)
{
if (dp == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dp");
dp.SetValue(DialogResultProperty, value);
}
#endregion
}
/Quote
The only thing you need is a VM like this to make my solution work.
public class WindowVm : ViewModelBase // base class implementing INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private bool? _dialogResult;
public bool? DialogResult
{
get { return _dialogResult; }
set
{
_dialogResult = value;
RaisePropertyChanged(() => DialogResult);
}
}
//... many other properties
}
Related
I'm a web and backend programmer by nature. Normally I try to avaoid making windows programs. Now I have to make a WPF client.
I have a background task that raises an event every often time. (It is working like a poller and when the criteria are met an event is raised). Noob as I am I wrote this code that was attached to the event to update the UI.
private void IsDisconnectedEvent()
{
UserWindow.Visibility = Visibility.Hidden;
DisconnectWindow.Visibility = Visibility.Visible;
}
This gives an exception because I am not on the same thread. After some googling I found that I should change the code with:
private void IsDisconnectedEvent()
{
Dispatcher.Invoke(() =>
{
UserWindow.Visibility = Visibility.Hidden;
DisconnectWindow.Visibility = Visibility.Visible;
});
}
This works, but this is not the only event and thus makes my code horrible ugly. Are there better ways to do this?
Regarding this:
This works, but this is not the only event and thus makes my code
horrible ugly
Yes, your WPF-based code will definitely be extremely horrible unless you understand and embrace The WPF Mentality.
Basically, all interactions between your custom logic (AKA Business logic or Application Logic) and the WPF UI should manifest in the form of Declarative DataBinding as opposed to the traditional imperative approach.
This means that there should be nothing like this:
UserWindow.Visibility = Visibility.Hidden;
anywhere in your code, simply because introducing things like that makes your code dependent on the UI and thus only executable on the UI thread.
Instead, the WPF approach to that would be to declaratively DataBind the Visibility propety of the UI element (IN XAML) to a relevant bool property that you can operate from the outside, like this:
<UserWindow Visibility="{Binding ShowUserWindow, Converter={my:BoolToVisibilityConverter}}">
<!-- ... -->
</UserWindow>
Then, you would need to create a relevant class that contains the properties the UI is expecting to bind to. This is called a ViewModel.
Notice that in order to properly support Two-Way WPF DataBinding, your ViewModels must Implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
When doing so, it is also convenient to have the PropertyChanged event from that interface marshalled to the UI thread, so that you no longer have to worry about setting the ViewModel's properties by using the Dispatcher.
Therefore our first step is to have all our ViewModels inherit from a class like this:
(taken from this answer):
public class PropertyChangedBase:INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName)
{
//Raise the PropertyChanged event on the UI Thread, with the relevant propertyName parameter:
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke((Action) (() =>
{
PropertyChangedEventHandler handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null) handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}));
}
}
Once we have our Property Change Notification Dispatch to the UI Thread in place, we can proceed to create a relevant ViewModel that suits, in this case, the UserWindow and it's DataBinding expectations:
public class UserViewModel: PropertyChangedBase
{
private bool _showUserWindow;
public bool ShowUserWindow
{
get {return _showUserWindow; }
set
{
_showUserWindow = value;
OnPropertyChanged("ShowUserWindow"); //This is important!!!
}
}
}
Finally, you would need to set the Window's DataContext to an instance of it's corresponding ViewModel. One simple way to do that is in the Window's constructor:
public UserWindow() //Window's Constructor
{
InitializeComponent(); //this is required.
DataContext = new UserViewModel(); //here we set the DataContext
}
As you can see in this example, there is literally no need to manipulate the UI element's properties in procedural code. This is good not only because it resolves the Thread Affinity issues (because now you can set the ShowUserWindow property from any thread), but also because it makes your ViewModels and logic completely decoupled from the UI and thus testable and more scalable.
This same concept applies to EVERYTHING in WPF.
One detail that I need to mention is that I'm making use of a technique of Combining MarkupExtension and IValueConverter in order to reduce the the XAML boilerplate involved in using Converters.
You can read more about that in the link and also the MSDN DataBinding page linked above.
Let me know if you need further details.
I understand that ViewModel shouldn't have any knowledge of View, but how can I call MediaElement.Play() method from ViewModel, other than having a reference to View (or directly to MediaElement) in ViewModel?
Other (linked) question: how can I manage View's controls visibility from ViewModel without violating MVVM pattern?
1) Do not call Play() from the view model. Raise an event in the view model instead (for instance PlayRequested) and listen to this event in the view:
view model:
public event EventHandler PlayRequested;
...
if (this.PlayRequested != null)
{
this.PlayRequested(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
view:
ViewModel vm = new ViewModel();
this.DataContext = vm;
vm.PlayRequested += (sender, e) =>
{
this.myMediaElement.Play();
};
2) You can expose in the view model a public boolean property, and bind the Visibility property of your controls to this property. As Visibility is of type Visibility and not bool, you'll have to use a converter.
You can find a basic implementation of such a converter here.
This related question might help you too.
For all the late-comers,
There are many ways to achieve the same result and it really depends on how you would like to implement yours, as long as your code is not difficult to maintain, I do believe it's ok to break the MVVM pattern under certain cases.
But having said that, I also believe there is always way to do this within the pattern, and the following is one of them just in case if anyone would like to know what other alternatives are available.
The Tasks:
we don't want to have direct reference from the ViewModel to any UI elements, i.e. the the MediaElement and the View itself.
we want to use Command to do the magic here
The Solution:
In short, we are going to introduce an interface between the View and the ViewModel to break the dependecy, and the View will be implementing the interface and be responsible for the direct controlling of the MediaElement while leaving the ViewModel talking only to the interface, which can be swapped with other implementation for testing purposes if needed, and here comes the long version:
Introduce an interface called IMediaService as below:
public interface IMediaService
{
void Play();
void Pause();
void Stop();
void Rewind();
void FastForward();
}
Implement the IMediaService in the View:
public partial class DemoView : UserControl, IMediaService
{
public DemoView()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
void IMediaService.FastForward()
{
this.MediaPlayer.Position += TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10);
}
void IMediaService.Pause()
{
this.MediaPlayer.Pause();
}
void IMediaService.Play()
{
this.MediaPlayer.Play();
}
void IMediaService.Rewind()
{
this.MediaPlayer.Position -= TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10);
}
void IMediaService.Stop()
{
this.MediaPlayer.Stop();
}
}
we then do few things in the DemoView.XAML:
Give the MediaElement a name so the code behind can access it like above:
<MediaElement Source="{Binding CurrentMedia}" x:Name="MediaPlayer"/>
Give the view a name so we can pass it as a parameter, and
import the interactivity namespace for later use (some default namespaces are omitted for simplicity reason):
<UserControl x:Class="Test.DemoView"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:ia="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/2010/interactivity"
x:Name="MediaService">
Hookup the Loaded event through Trigger to pass the view itself to the view model through a Command
<ia:Interaction.Triggers>
<ia:EventTrigger EventName="Loaded">
<ia:InvokeCommandAction Command="{Binding LoadedCommand}" CommandParameter="{Binding ElementName=MediaService}"></ia:InvokeCommandAction>
</ia:EventTrigger>
</ia:Interaction.Triggers>
last but not least, we need to hookup the media controls through Commands:
<Button Command="{Binding PlayCommand}" Content="Play"></Button>
<Button Command="{Binding PauseCommand}" Content="Pause"></Button>
<Button Command="{Binding StopCommand}" Content="Stop"></Button>
<Button Command="{Binding RewindCommand}" Content="Rewind"></Button>
<Button Command="{Binding FastForwardCommand}" Content="FastForward"></Button>
We now can catch everything in the ViewModel (I'm using prism's DelegateCommand here):
public class AboutUsViewModel : SkinTalkViewModelBase, IConfirmNavigationRequest
{
public IMediaService {get; private set;}
private DelegateCommand<IMediaService> loadedCommand;
public DelegateCommand<IMediaService> LoadedCommand
{
get
{
if (this.loadedCommand == null)
{
this.loadedCommand = new DelegateCommand<IMediaService>((mediaService) =>
{
this.MediaService = mediaService;
});
}
return loadedCommand;
}
}
private DelegateCommand playCommand;
public DelegateCommand PlayCommand
{
get
{
if (this.playCommand == null)
{
this.playCommand = new DelegateCommand(() =>
{
this.MediaService.Play();
});
}
return playCommand;
}
}
.
. // other commands are not listed, but you get the idea
.
}
Side note: I use Prism's Auto Wiring feature to link up the View and ViewModel. So at the View's code behind file there is no DataContext assignment code, and I prefer to keep it that way, and hence I chose to use purely Commands to achieve this result.
I use media element to play sounds in UI whenever an event occurs in the application. The view model handling this, was created with a Source property of type Uri (with notify property changed, but you already know you need that to notify UI).
All you have to do whenever source changes (and this is up to you), is to set the source property to null (this is why Source property should be Uri and not string, MediaElement will naturally throw exception, NotSupportedException I think), then set it to whatever URI you want.
Probably, the most important aspect of this tip is that you have to set MediaElement's property LoadedBehaviour to Play in XAML of your view. Hopefully no code behind is needed for what you want to achieve.
The trick is extremely simple so I won't post a complete example. The view model's play function should look like this:
private void PlaySomething(string fileUri)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fileUri))
return;
// HACK for MediaElement: to force it to play a new source, set source to null then put the real source URI.
this.Source = null;
this.Source = new Uri(fileUri);
}
Here is the Source property, nothing special about it:
#region Source property
/// <summary>
/// Stores Source value.
/// </summary>
private Uri _Source = null;
/// <summary>
/// Gets or sets file URI to play.
/// </summary>
public Uri Source
{
get { return this._Source; }
private set
{
if (this._Source != value)
{
this._Source = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("Source");
}
}
}
#endregion Source property
As for Visibility, and stuff like this, you can use converters (e.g. from bool to visibility, which you can find on CodePlex for WPF, SL, WP7,8) and bind your control's property to that of the view model's (e.g. IsVisible). This way, you control parts of you view's aspect. Or you can just have Visibility property typed System.Windows.Visibility on your view model (I don't see any pattern breach here). Really, it's not that uncommon.
Good luck,
Andrei
P.S. I have to mention that .NET 4.5 is the version where I tested this, but I think it should work on other versions as well.
I am a little confused on how to implement an event as a command in my particular situation. I want to honour MVVM, but don't get how in this case.
I have a WPF 'view' - viewCustomerSearch. This has some text boxes on it, and when the user clicks 'Search' the results are populated in ListView. viewCustomerSearch is bound to viewmodelCustomerSearch, and it works great.
viewCustomerSearch is hosted on viewCustomer.
I want to know have viewCustomerSearch expose a custom command - CustomerSelectedCommand - that is 'fired' whenever the ListView in viesCustomerSearch is double clicked, and then handled by the viewmodel behind viewCustomer (which is viewmodelCustomer). This seems the theoretical MVVM pattern implemented correctly.
I have broken down the main problem into three smaller problems, but hopefully you can see they are all components of the same challenge.
FIRST PROBLEM: in order to have viewCustomerSearch expose a custom command I seem to have to put this code in viewCustomerSearch - which seems to 'break' MVVM (no code in the view code behind).
public readonly DependencyProperty CustomerSelectedCommandProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("CustomerSelectedCommand", typeof(ICommand), typeof(viewCustomerSearch));
public ICommand CustomerSelectedCommand
{
get { return (ICommand)GetValue(CustomerSelectedCommandProperty); }
set { SetValue(CustomerSelectedCommandProperty, value); }
}
SECOND PROBLEM (and this is the one that is really getting to me): Best explained by showing what I would do which breaks MVVM. I would have an event handler in the view:
private void lstResults_MouseDoubleClick(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e)
{
if (CustomerSelectedCommand != null) CustomerSelectedCommand.Execute(((ViewModels.viewmodelCustomerSearchResult)this.lstResults.SelectedItem).CustomerId);
}
Well ... I know that you shouldn't put this event handler here; rather it should have a Command to handle it in the viewmodelCustomerSearch. The two problems here are
because the 'CustomerSelectedCommand' ICommand is implemented in
viewCustomerSearch, viewmodelCustomerSearch can't see it to fire it.
I cannot see how to bind the MouseDoubleClick event to a command, instead of an event handler in the view code behind. I am reading about Attached Properties, but cannot see how they are to be applied here.
(Please note: I am using the common 'RelayCommand' elsewhere in the application; does this come into play here??)
THIRD PROBLEM: When I do use the non-MVVM way of firing the command in the code behind event handler, you can see that I am passing in the Selected Customer Id as an arguement into the command. How do I see that argument in the Command handler in viewCustomer? I create a new RelayCommand to handle it, but it seems the Execute method does not take arguments?
Given all of the above, I have to say that I do NOT personally subscribe to the 'MVVM means NO CODE IN THE VIEW'. That seems crazy to me; code that is entirely to do with the view, and the view only, should not - IMHO - go in the viewmodel. That said, though, this does seem like logic-y stuff (not view stuff).
Many thanks for some insight. Sorry for the long post; trying to balance enough information for you to help me with 'War and Peace'.
DS
In your view you can add a "Command" property in xaml and bind it to your ViewModel's command
Command="{Binding CustomerSelectedCommand}"
Parameters can be passed in multiple ways. Most of the time, I just have other items bound to my ViewModel and I can just use them directly. However there is also a property called CommandParameter, here's an example of specifying it in XAML.
CommandParameter="{Binding ElementName=txtPassword}"
then in my ViewModel the definition of my Command looks like this
private void UserLogonCommandExecute(object parameter)
{
...
var password_box = parameter as PasswordBox;
...
}
It sounds like you already know how to set up a RelayCommand in your ViewModel so I won't go into that. I found How Do I: Build Data-driven WPF Application using the MVVM pattern helpful when I was getting started.
Per Comment Request Command Property Example
I'm just going to grab some working code, here's how you add a Command property to a button in XAML.
<Button Command="{Binding ConnectCommand}">
//Your button content and closing </Button> here
This assume you have set your DataContext to a ViewModel that has a Command called ConnectCommand. Here's an example for ConnectCommand. You'll need to replace the contents of ConnectCommandCanExecute and ConnectCommandExecute with whatever work you want done.
public ICommand ConnectCommand
{
get
{
if (_connectCommand == null)
{
_connectCommand = new RelayCommand(param => ConnectCommandExecute(),
param => ConnectCommandCanExecute);
}
return _connectCommand;
}
}
private bool ConnectCommandCanExecute
{
get { return !_instrumentModel.IsConnected; }
}
private void ConnectCommandExecute()
{
if (TcpSettingsChanged()) SaveTcpSettings();
_instrumentModel.Connect(_tcpData);
}
RelayClass
One part of making this simple is the RelayClass I have in one of my core library .dlls. I probably got this from one of the videos I watched. This can be cut and pasted in it's entirety, there is nothing here you need to customize, except you'll probably want to change the namespace this is in.
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Windows.Input;
namespace Syncor.MvvmLib
{
public class RelayCommand : ICommand
{
private readonly Action<object> _execute;
private readonly Predicate<object> _canExecute;
public event EventHandler CanExecuteChanged
{
add
{
CommandManager.RequerySuggested += value;
}
remove
{
CommandManager.RequerySuggested -= value;
}
}
public RelayCommand(Action<object> execute)
: this(execute, (Predicate<object>) null)
{
this._execute = execute;
}
public RelayCommand(Action<object> execute, Predicate<object> canExecute)
{
if (execute == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("execute");
this._execute = execute;
this._canExecute = canExecute;
}
[DebuggerStepThrough]
public bool CanExecute(object parameter)
{
if (this._canExecute != null)
return this._canExecute(parameter);
else
return true;
}
public void Execute(object parameter)
{
this._execute(parameter);
}
}
}
Why don't you name it "DoubleClickCommand" that way you don't put business logic in your control. And then bind this command to your viewmodel, Like Tod explained.
Regarding your code behind, there is a pure xaml solution, to be more precise it involves attached behaviors, but does not need to override a WPF class(which i like to avoid), search for "fire command on event" for example this.
One final thing: Code Behind does NOT break MVVM in any way, i wonder where this myth came from. Code behind is perfectly fine! MVVM is to separate view and logic, not telling you where to put your code. Design principles should help, not hinder you.
I'm developing my first Silverlight 4 app and are struggling on how to to share my DataContext set on the top element (a Grid) in my MainPage.xaml into an underlying UserControl, in a type safe way. The DataContext is an instance of my ViewModel class and my thought is to be able to bind certain elements in the UserControl to properties of the ViewModel.
I am pretty sure the ViewModel object bubbles down to my UserControl but how can I in the UserControl asure that the DataContext is of type PatternCreatorViewModel?
Hope this was understandable!
This is (in my lonely opinion) one of the biggest limitations of the data binding model in Silverlight and WPF, namely, that there's no type safety anywhere in the process. As soon as you type {Binding...} you're working without a net. MS managed to take a wonderfully glorious strongly-typed language like C# and tied it to a completely non-type-safe data binding model, thereby all but wrecking a decade of Anders Hejlsberg's wonderful work on C#. You expect this sort of "looseness" when working with dynamic languages, but not when you're dealing with C#.
This limitation really becomes problematic when you're changing the ViewModel underlying your Views, because of course, there's no easy way to test your data bindings. Normally, when you've got code that you can't test, you can at least rely on the compiler to tell you if what you're asking the code to do doesn't make any sense. But because MS made data bindings non-type-safe, not only can you not test your changes, you can't even rely on the compiler to tell you when they don't make any sense. And, to add insult to injury, you can't even rely on running your application and seeing if you get any error messages: because bindings always fail silently. The best you can do is turn up the logging level and walk through tons of debug error messages. Uggh. Nasty as hell.
See my blog posting here, another question I asked here, and my answer here for more thoughts on the underlying issue.
I should note that I seem to be virtually alone in my opinion about this one, so perhaps there's something huge that I'm just missing. But I personally think you've hit the nail right on the head.
Pleasd see update below: the first proposed solution may cause threading-issues.
One possibility is creating a DependencyProperty of the required type, updating that during DataContextChanged and binding to that.
DefaultEditor.xaml.cs:
public partial class DefaultEditor : UserControl
{
public DefaultEditor()
{
this.DataContextChanged += OnDataContextChanged;
InitializeComponent();
}
private void OnDataContextChanged(object sender, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
SetValue(propertyNameProperty, this.DataContext as IPropertyProvider);
}
public static readonly DependencyProperty propertyNameProperty = DependencyProperty.Register(
nameof(PropertyProvider), typeof(IPropertyProvider), typeof(DefaultEditor), new PropertyMetadata(default(IPropertyProvider)));
public IPropertyProvider PropertyProvider
{
get { return (IPropertyProvider)GetValue(propertyNameProperty); }
}
}
Note: I reduced the standard Visual Studio pattern for the DepenendencyProperty, because I did not want a public setter.
Also, make sure to add the event handler before calling InitializeComponent().
DefaultEditor.xaml:
<UserControl x:Class="MyApp.DefaultEditor" x:Name="self">
<Grid DataContext="{Binding ElementName=self, Path=PropertyProvider}">
<StackPanel>
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Index}"/>
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Name}"/>
</StackPanel>
</Grid>
</UserControl>
Once x:Name="self" is defined I have Intellisense for Path=PropertyProvider and the other bindings.
Note: Be sure not to set the entire control's DataContext (which would be recursive), use another (top-level) element like the Grid.
And, in case it wasn't obvious: In the example above IPropertyProvider is a custom type that must be replaced with the required type.
UPDATE:
While the above does work, it can invite code to access DefaultEditor.PropertyProvider from a wrong thread (other than the element's dispatcher's thread), which leads to an InvalidOperationException. This can be resolved by replacing the DependencyProperty with a simple property and implementing INotifyPropertyChanged.
Here's an updated code-behind, the .xaml remains the same.
DefaultEditor.xaml.cs
public partial class DefaultEditor : UserControl, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public DefaultEditor()
{
this.DataContextChanged += OnDataContextChanged;
InitializeComponent();
}
private void OnDataContextChanged(object sender, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
PropertyProvider = this.DataContext as IPropertyProvider;
}
private IPropertyProvider _propertyProvider;
public IPropertyProvider PropertyProvider { get => _propertyProvider; private set => SetField(ref _propertyProvider, value); }
#region INotifyPropertyChanged
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged([CallerMemberName] string propertyName = null)
{
PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
protected bool SetField<T>(ref T field, T value, [CallerMemberName] string propertyName = null)
{
if (EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(field, value)) return false;
field = value;
OnPropertyChanged(propertyName);
return true;
}
#endregion
}
Note: The INotifyPropertyChanged implementation is a Visual Studio (Resharper?) code-snippet.
Using this code, DefaultEditor.PropertyProvider can be accessed from any thread.
How would I set focus to a TextBox without specifying the name for that TextBox? At the moment I am doing the following
<Window FocusManager.FocusedElement="{Binding ElementName=Username}">
<Grid>
<TextBox Text="{Binding Username}" Name="Username" />
</Grid>
</Window>
Is there any way of doing this without specifying a Name for the TextBox. As I believe in MVVM having a Name element usually means bad design?
As I believe in MVVM having a Name element usually means bad design?
No, it’s not.
The MVVM pattern is not about eliminating all the code from code-behind files.
It is about separating of concerns and increasing the testability.
View related code like focus handling should remain in the code-behind file of the View. But it would be bad to see application logic or database connection management in the code-behind file of the View.
MVVM examples with code in the code-behind files without violating the MVVM pattern can be found at the WPF Application Framework (WAF) project.
The simple way is to set focus in UserControl_Load event
this.txtBox.Focus();
txtBox.Focusable = true;
Keyboard.Focus(txtBox);
MVVM doesn't mean you can not put code in the code behind file.
In fact, Do not let any pattern restrict you to find the best way of coding.
I have documented a "pure MVVM" way to do this in my answer to a similar problem. The solution involves using Attached Properties and a framework for passing interface commands from the ViewModel back to the View.
Code behind should be avoided when possible, even more when it is in the view. I had the same problem and for simple purposes the best answer is this one as it only modifies the view:
WPF MVVM Default Focus on Textbox and selectAll
If you are looking to set again focus as you interact with other UserControl elements, this will do the trick:
Set focus on textbox in WPF from view model (C#)
I lost 3 days figuring this out, I hope this can help.
As I believe in MVVM having a Name element usually means bad design?
No, it’s not.
According to Microsoft MVP's not only is naming controls is WPF bad practice, it is a quite substantial hit on performance. Just wanted to pass along some words of wisdom
I agree with Sean Du about not letting any pattern totally restrict you, I think performance hit should be avoided whenever possible.
Actually, I found the boolean attached property solution a bit dirty and clumsy in the way that you have to find a twist in order to be sure that the next set of your view model property will really raise the attached property changed event.
A simple and more elegant solution is to bind your behavior on property type for which you can be sure that the next value will always be different from the previous one and thus be sure that your attached property changed event will raise every times.
The most simple type that comes into mind is the int. The solution is then the usual combination of :
The behavior:
public static class TextBoxFocusBehavior
{
public static int GetKeepFocus(DependencyObject obj)
{
return (int)obj.GetValue(KeepFocusProperty);
}
public static void SetKeepFocus(DependencyObject obj, int value)
{
obj.SetValue(KeepFocusProperty, value);
}
// Using a DependencyProperty as the backing store for KeepFocus. This enables animation, styling, binding, etc...
public static readonly DependencyProperty KeepFocusProperty =
DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached("KeepFocus", typeof(int), typeof(TextBoxFocusBehavior), new UIPropertyMetadata(0, OnKeepFocusChanged));
private static void OnKeepFocusChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
TextBox t = d as TextBox;
if (t != null)
{
t.Focus();
}
}
}
The view model property:
public int InputFocus
{
get { return _inputFocus; }
private set
{
_inputFocus = value;
Notify(Npcea.InputFocus);
}
}
The use of the attached behavior:
<TextBox v:TextBoxFocusBehavior.KeepFocus="{Binding InputFocus}"/>
And finaly the use of the property in the VM:
public void YouMethod()
{
//some code logic
InputFocus++;//<= the textbox focus
}
Some REALLY bad minded spirits might say that this logic is bound to the int32 size limitation. Well... I will just choose to ignore them right now ;-)