Page.GetRoutUrl in a static method - url-routing

Some background on what I'm doing
I usually like to have my pages return the url needed to access it. So i will normally have a method like so
public partial class ProductDetails : Page
{
public static string GetUrl(Guid productId)
{
return "fully qualified url";
}
}
on my other pages/controls that need to access this page i'll simply set the link as
hl.NavigateUrl = ProductDetails.GetUrl(id);
I'm toying around with the new UrlRouting stuff in 4.0 and ran into something I'm not sure will work. I'm trying to use the Page.GetRouteUrl in my static method, and obviously it's blowing up due to Page not being static.
Does anyone know if it's possible replicate what i'm doing with GetRouteUrl?
thx

You can do something like:
var url = ((Page)HttpContext.Current.Handler).GetRouteUrl(id);
Note: If you called this method from another page, you may not get the desired result if it's relative-specific in some way...but it's as good as you can get with static I believe.

I got GetRouteUrl to work using Nicks suggestion above.
I also found an alternative way to do it w/o using the GetRouteUrl. You are basically generating it manually using GetVirtualPath
public static string GetUrl(int productId)
{
var parameters = new RouteValueDictionary { { "productId", productId } };
var vpd = RouteTable.Routes.GetVirtualPath(null, "product-details", parameters);
return vpd.VirtualPath;
}

Related

creating a simple back end design in Laravel for private/public ownership

I'm using Laravel for a site where most database objects can be private (i.e., viewed only by their owner) or public (viewed by everyone, including guests). Each of these has a user_id, which I set to NULL when the object is public.
What's the simplest way of authenticating routes for this scenario? For example, in /routes/web.php I have:
Route::get('/{tournament}/players', [TournamentController::class, 'indexPlayers']);
and I want to make sure that tournament->user_id is either NULL or corresponds to the user's id. I was able to do this by explicitly binding tournament in /app/Providers/RouteServiceProvider.php:
Route::bind('tournament', function ($hash) {
$user_id = Auth::user()->id ?? NULL;
return Tournament::where([['hash', $hash], ['user_id', $user_id]])
->orWhere([['hash', $hash], ['user_id', NULL]])
->firstOrFail();
});
but I have the strong feeling that I'm making it too complicated or doing things in the wrong place. Is there a better way? Should I by doing this inside TournamentController, for example?
First, there is now the syntax Auth::id() that can be used as a shorthand for Auth::user()->id ?? NULL, so that saves some trouble.
Next, I ended up moving the logic out of RouteServiceProvider.php and into the controller, so that I can explicitly control what happens for public vs. private objects:
class TournamentController extends Controller
{
public function indexPlayers(Tournament $tournament)
{
if ($tournament->user_id === NULL) {
// public
} else if ($tournament->user_id === Auth::id()) {
// private
} else {
// unauthorized
}
}
...
}

Multiple Nancy route patterns to a single action?

I would like to have the same action be performed by 2 or more route patterns.
For example:
//Route 1:
Get["/{category}/{product_name}/{id}"]
// Route 2:
Get["/api/products/{id}"]
Ideally the first route would be SEO friendly and return a view, the second route would return JSON and be used as an API.
Is it simply a matter of defining 2 separate routes and calling the common logic encapsulated in another method? Or is there some Nancy magic I don't know about?
Update
My final solution was to use multiple assignments in the one statement.
Get["/{category}/{product_name}/{id}"] = Get["/api/products/{id}"] = params =>
{
...
};
I know this is answered, but I thought I'd add my tuppence for a slightly neater solution. This is my solution:
public class ExampleModule : NancyModule
{
public ExampleModule()
{
Get["/somepath"] = DoSomething;
Post["/somepath"] = DoSomething;
}
private dynamic DoSomething(dynamic parameters)
{
return null;
}
}
It's a matter of calling the common logic. No magic I'm afraid.
Note that Nancy's content negotiation can take care of returning a view or json based on the request.

Using stored procedures (Linq-to-SQL, not EF) in WCF RIA - Silverlight 4

For the love of heaven and earth I really wish someone could help me out with this issue. It seems everyone has something to say about EF but nothing about Linq-to-SQL.
I am trying to grab some data from my table via a stored procedure, believe me, that's all.
I added the Linq-to-SQL model (LAMP.dbml)
added the stored procedure (getAffectedParcel) from the server explorer. getAffectedParcel takes 2 strings as parameters
Build the application.
Added a domain service class (LAMPService)
Selected the (LAMPDataContext) as the data context class (normally I would tick generate metadata, but since I am not working with tables it's not enabled for ticking)
Added the following function to the LAMPService.cs:
public IEnumerable < getAffectedParcelResult > GetTheAffectedParcels(String v, String vf)
{
return this.DataContext.getAffectedParcel(v, vf).AsEnumerable();
}
Added the following code to a Silverlight page in an attempt to consume the stored procedure:
LAMPContext db = new LAMPContext();
try
{
var q = db.GetTheAffectedParcels("18606004005", "").Value;
foreach (getAffectedParcelResult GAP in q)
{
MessageBox.Show(GAP.Owner);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show (ex.Message.ToString());
}
Build and run application. An error occurs stating:
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
I have tried ~1000,000 ways to see if this thing would work, but to no avail. Please don't tell me to use Entity Framework, I want to use Linq-to-SQL. Can someone (anyone) help me out here.
//houdini
Calling a stored procedure from the Silverlight client happens in the Async world. Let's consider an example from the AdventureWorks database...
Here's what the Domain Service method looks like. It is calling the EF on a stored procedure in the database called 'BillOfMaterials'.
public IQueryable<BillOfMaterial> GetBillOfMaterials()
{
return this.ObjectContext.BillOfMaterials;
}
Back on the client side, here is the code for setting up the call...
public GetSp()
{
InitializeComponent();
DomainService1 ds1 = new DomainService1();
var lo = ds1.Load(ds1.GetBillOfMaterialsQuery());
lo.Completed += LoCompleted;
}
First, the Domain Service is created, and then it is used to load the results of the stored procedure. In this particular case, the result of this is an instance of 'LoadOperation'. These things are async, so the LoadOperation needs to have a callback for when it is finished. The callback code looks like this...
public ObservableCollection<BillOfMaterial> MyList { get; set; }
void LoCompleted(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
LoadOperation lo = sender as LoadOperation;
if(lo!=null)
{
MyList = new ObservableCollection<BillOfMaterial>();
foreach(BillOfMaterial bi in lo.AllEntities)
{
MyList.Add(bi);
}
dataGrid1.ItemsSource = MyList;
}
}
In this method, the 'sender' is dereferenced into the LoadOperation instance, and then all the goodies from the database can be accessed. In this trivial example, a list is built and passed to DataGrid as the ItemsSource. It's good for understanding, but you would probably do something else in practice.
That should solve your problem. :)
The best advice I can give on Silverlight and RIA is never do ANYTHING on your own until you have tried it in AdventureWorks. You will just waste your time and beat your head against the wall.
Firstly, it seems like your DomainService code is written for Invoke() rather than Query(). You should use Query as it enables you to update data back to the server.
Solution: you should add a [Query] attribute to GetTheAffectedParcels on the domain service.
[Query]
public IQueryable<Parcel>
GetTheAffectedParcels(string ParcelNumber, string LotNumber)
{
// etc.
}
Secondly, RIA Services needs to know which is the primary key on the Parcel class.
Solution: Apply a MetadataType attribute to the Parcel class, which allows you to add metadata to the Parcel class indirectly, since it is generated by Linq2Sql and you couldn't add annotations directly to the ParcelId - it'd get wiped away.
[MetadataType(typeof(ParcelMetadata)]
public partial class Parcel
{
}
public class ParcelMetadata
{
[System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Key]
public int ParcelId {get; set; }
}
Thirdly, modify your client like this. Instead try this on the Silverlight client:
LAMPContext db = new LAMPContext();
try
{
var q = db.GetTheAffectedParcelsQuery("18606004005", "");
db.Load(q, (op) =>
{
if (op.HasError)
{
label1.Text = op.Error.Message;
op.MarkErrorAsHandled();
}
else
{
foreach (var parcel in op.Entities)
{
// your code here
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
label1.Text = op.ex.Message;
}
Much thanks to Chui and Garry who practically kicked me in the right direction :) [thanks guys...ouch]
This is the procedure I finally undertook:
-After adding the data model(LINQ2SQL) and the domain service, I created a partial class [as suggested by Chui] and included the following metadata info therein:
[MetadataTypeAttribute(typeof(getAffectedParcelResult.getAffectedParcelResultMetadata))]
public partial class getAffectedParcelResult
{
internal sealed class getAffectedParcelResultMetadata
{
[Key]
public string PENumber { get; set; }
}
}
Then, Adjusted the Domain Service to include the following:
[Query]
public IQueryable<getAffectedParcelResult> GetTheAffectedParcels(string v, string vf)
{
// IEnumerable<getAffectedParcelResult> ap = this.DataContext.getAffectedParcel(v, vf);
return this.DataContext.getAffectedParcel(v, vf).AsQueryable();
}
Then Build the app, afterwhich the getAffectedParcelResult store procedure appeared in the Data Sources panel. I wanted to access this via code however. Therefore, I accessed it in silverlight [.xaml page] via the following:
LAMPContext db = new LAMPContext();
var q = db.GetTheAffectedParcelsQuery("18606004005", "");
db.Load(q, (op) =>
{
if (op.HasError)
{
MessageBox.Show(op.Error.Message);
op.MarkErrorAsHandled();
}
else
{
foreach (getAffectedParcelResult gap in op.Entities)
{
ownerTextBlock.Text = gap.Owner.ToString();
}
}
},false);
This worked nicely. The thing is, my stored procedure returns a complex type so to speak. As of such, it was not possible to map it to any particular entity.
Oh and by the way this article helped out as well:
http://onmick.com/Home/tabid/154/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2/Pulling-Data-from-Stored-Procedures-in-WCF-RIA-Services-for-Silverlight.aspx

Importing a class with a specific parameter

I got a ViewModel which I export with MEF. I'd like this ViewModel to be initialized differently each time it's being imported, according to an enum/specific object parameter that will be provided to it.
I've been reading a little on the subject and I found that maybe this -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee155691.aspx#metadata_and_metadata_views
would be able to fit my needs, but I'm not sure that this would be the best way to do it.
Another method I've been thinking about is importing the class normally, and then once I've an instance, to call a special initialization method that would receive my parameter. However this doesn't seem like a classic MEF implementation, and maybe losses some of its "magic".
I'm hoping someone would be able to point out for me what would be the recommended method to achieve this.
Thanks!
A workaround is exporting a factory that creates instances of your type. While this means you cannot directly import thos instances, it does have the benefit that the logic to create them is the responsability of the factory so users of the class do not have to know about it:
public class ServiceWithParameter
{
public ServiceWithParameter( int a )
{
this.a = a;
}
private readonly int a;
}
[Export]
public class ServiceWithParameterFactory
{
public ServiceWithParameterFactory()
{
instance = 0;
}
public ServiceWithParameter Instance()
{
return new ServiceWithParameter( instance++ );
}
private int instance;
}
//now everywhere you need ServiceWithParameter:
[Import]
ServiceWithParameterFactory serviceFactory;
var instanceA = serviceFactory.Instance(); //instanceA.a = 0
var instanceB = serviceFactory.Instance(); //instanceB.a = 1
A more extensible way is telling the container you have a factory and an example is presented here: http://pwlodek.blogspot.com/2010/10/mef-object-factories-using-export.html

How to achieve "Blendability" when using DataServiceCollection in my ViewModel

I'm looking at using oData endpoints in my Silverlight client. Naturally, I'm doing MVVM and I want the project to be nice and "Blendable" (i.e. I must be able to cleanly use static data instead of the oData endpoints when in design mode.)
Now to the problem. I'd like to use the DataServiceCollection in my ViewModels, since it allows for nice bindable collections without having to worry too much with BeginExecute/EndExecute etc.
Now, let's look at some code. My Model interface looks like this:
public interface ITasksModel
{
IQueryable<Task> Tasks { get; }
}
The oData endpoint implementation of that interface:
public class TasksModel : ITasksModel
{
Uri svcUri = new Uri("http://localhost:2404/Services/TasksDataService.svc");
TaskModelContainer _container;
public TasksModel()
{
_container = new TaskModelContainer(svcUri);
}
public IQueryable<Task> Tasks
{
get
{
return _container.TaskSet;
}
}
}
And the "Blendable" design-time implementation:
public class DesignModeTasksModel : ITasksModel
{
private List<Task> _taskCollection = new List<Task>();
public DesignModeTasksModel()
{
_taskCollection.Add(new Task() { Id = 1, Title = "Task 1" });
_taskCollection.Add(new Task() { Id = 2, Title = "Task 2" });
_taskCollection.Add(new Task() { Id = 3, Title = "Task 3" });
}
public IQueryable<Task> Tasks
{
get {
return _taskCollection.AsQueryable();
}
}
}
However, when I try to use this last one in my ViewModel constructor:
public TaskListViewModel(ITasksModel tasksModel)
{
_tasksModel = tasksModel;
_tasks = new DataServiceCollection<Task>();
_tasks.LoadAsync(_tasksModel.Tasks);
}
I get an exception:
Only a typed DataServiceQuery object can be supplied when calling the LoadAsync method on DataServiceCollection.
First of all, if this is the case, why not make the input parameter of LoadAsync be typed as DataServiceQuery?
Second, what is the "proper" way of doing what I'm trying to accomplish?
The reason LoadAsync requires DataServiceQuery is that just plain IQueryable doesn't define asynchronous way of executing the query. The reason the method takes IQueryable type as its parameter is so that users don't have to cast the query object to DataServiceQuery explicitely (makes the code shorter) and since we assume that users will try to run their code at least once, they would see the error immediately (as you did).
LoadAsync only supports asynchronous operations, so it needs the DataServiceQuery. If you already have the results (without a need to execute async request) you can call the Load method instead. Which is the answer to your second question. Instead of calling LoadAsync for both desing time and run time, you could use Load for design time and LoadAsync for run time. But due to tracking constrains you might need to create the DataServiceCollection in different way.
Something like this:
DataServiceCollection<Task> dsc;
DataServiceQuery<Task> dsq = _tasksModel as DataServiceQuery<Task>;
if (dsq != null)
{
dsc = new DataServiceCollection<Task>();
dsc.LoadAsync(dsq);
}
else
{
dsc = new DataServiceCollection<Task>(myDataServiceContext);
dsc.Load(_tasksModel);
// Invoke the LoadAsyncCompleted handler here
}
If you pass the DataServiceContext to the constructor before caling Load the entities will be tracked (just like in the LoadAsync case). If you don't need that you can call the constructor which takes IEnumerable and TrackingMode and turn off tracking on it.

Resources