I've got two combo's 'Make' and 'Model', they've got their SelectedValue properties bound to an Vehicle object with a ModelID and a MakeID.
Heres Model ...
<ComboBox DisplayMemberPath="Description" ItemsSource="{Binding Path=ModelSpecs}" SelectedValue="{Binding Path=Vehicle.ModelID}" SelectedValuePath="ID" />
A user can search for Vehicles in a seperate control and this swaps out the underlying Vehicle object. Everything works fine if your switching between vehicles of the same Make, however if the Make changes I go away to the database and reload the ModelSpec collection. The combo dosnt display the Model Description because the binding needs to be refreshed.
My current work-around is to add this at the end of the method thats reloading the Models - it works fine, but is not a particularly elegent solution.
var modelID = ViewModel.Vehicle.ModelID;
ViewModel.Vehicle.ModelID = string.Empty;
ViewModel.Vehicle.ModelID = modelID;
Basically I'm just triggering the INotifyPropertyChanged ...
private string _modelID;
public string ModelID
{
get { return _modelID; }
set
{
if (_modelID == value) return;
_modelID = value;
OnPropertyChanged("ModelID");
}
}
I can think of a couple of similar inelegant solutions - but there must be a better way?! Any help appreciated!
Just make ModelSpec collection observable (i.e. implement INotifyCollectionChanged yourself, or use ObservableCollection class for it).
Well, this is probably just another "inelegant" solution, but one more correct way would be to get the BindingExpression from the combo-box and call BindingExpression.UpdateSource.
Thanks for you assistance, in the end this did the trick and I prefer it to my first workaround.
It seems fine to me, but I guess others may gasp in horror? Please feel free to comment if so!
ModelSpecs is on my ManageVehicleViewModel so it dosnt seem that out of place to have the extra PropertyChanged call.
private IEnumerable<ModelSpec> _modelSpecs;
public IEnumerable<ModelSpec> ModelSpecs
{
get
{
return _modelSpecs;
}
set
{
if (_modelSpecs == value) return;
_modelSpecs = value;
OnPropertyChanged("ModelSpecs");
OnPropertyChanged("Vehicle");
}
}
Related
I'm trying to implement a basic filtered list box in WPF. The user types something and the list is narrowed to the values beginning with the typed phrase.
I have:
a View with:
a TextBox whose Text property is bound to InstitutionFilteringString property in the ViewModel class, which is set as the data context,
a ListBox whose ItemSource property is bound to an ICollectionView named Institutions in the View Model
a ViewModel class with the properties mentioned above.
Code (with irrelevant parts cut out):
class ChooseInstitiutionAndPublisherPageViewModel : WizardPageViewModelBase
{
private ICollectionView _institutions;
public ICollectionView Institutions
{
get
{
return _institutions;
}
set
{
_institutions = value;
NotifyPropertyChanged("Institutions");
}
}
private string _institutionFilteringString;
public string InstitutionFilteringString
{
get
{
return _institutionFilteringString;
}
set
{
_institutionFilteringString = value;
NotifyPropertyChanged("InstitutionFilteringString");
//WORKAROUND
//Institutions.Filter = new Predicate<object>(FilterInstitutions);
Institutions.Refresh();
}
}
public ChooseInstitiutionAndPublisherPageViewModel(WizardViewModel parent)
: base(parent)
{
Institutions = CollectionViewSource.GetDefaultView(CentralRepository.Instance.GetInstitutions());
Institutions.Filter = new Predicate<object>(FilterInstitutions);
}
private bool FilterInstitutions(object obj)
{
//I may refer directly to the field or through the property, it doesn't change anything
if (_institutionFilteringString == null || _institutionFilteringString.Length == 0)
return true;
//some more filtering, irrelevant
//[cut]
}
}
The view and the binding:
<TextBox Text="{Binding Path=InstitutionFilteringString, Mode=TwoWay}" Height="23" Margin="6,6,87,0" Name="institutionNameTextBox" VerticalAlignment="Top" TextChanged="institutionNameTextBox_TextChanged" />
<ListBox Margin="6,35" Name="institutionsListBox" ItemsSource="{Binding Path=Institutions}" IsSynchronizedWithCurrentItem="True" />
So, to the point. The setter for the InstitutionFilteringString is called correctly. Following an advice from here, the setter calls a Refresh() method on the collection view. The FilterInstitutions() method is called.
And now the bug: even though the string was set just before a second, inside the FilterInstitutions method it's null. If I go with the debugger down the call stack, from the point of view of the setter it's still set to the typed value, but inside the filtering method it's null.
In the setter there is a commented-out line of code. Uncommenting it fixes the bug, but it's hardly how it should be done.
What am I doing wrong?
(I'm not sure, but it seems to me as if the setter and the filtering method operated on two different instances of the class. But how is it possible, I create just one instance and the class is not clonable)
EDIT
I'm sorry, it seems I've lied. I've put a breakpoint in the constructor and it seems I indeed create two instances of the class and CollectionViewSource.GetDefaultView returns the same instance of ICollectionView for both. Well, but I want actually to have two views for the same collection. Well, I've followed this answer and it seems to work :)
do you create your Institutions once? and set the
Institutions.Filter = new Predicate<object>(FilterInstitutions)
once? if yes its ok :) can you post your code for this and also the code for FilterInstitutions methode? i do it all the way in my projects and have no problems.
I am working on a WPF app using the MVVM patterm, which I am learning. It uses EF4. I am trying to use a similar tabbed document interface style; several combo boxes on these tabs have the same items sources (from a sql db). Since this data almost never changes, it seemed like a good idea to make a repository object to get them when the app starts, and just reuse them for each viewmodel. For whatever reason though, even though I use new in the constructors, the lists are connected.
If I set a bound combo box on one tab, it gets set on another (or set when a new tab is created). I don't want this to happen, but I don't know why does.
The repository object is initialized before anything else, and just holds public lists. The views simply use items source binding onto the ObservableCollection. I am using the ViewModelBase class from the article. Here is the Viewmodel and model code.
ViewModel
TicketModel _ticket;
public TicketViewModel(TableRepository repository)
{
_ticket = new TicketModel(repository);
}
public ObservableCollection<Customer> CustomerList
{
get { return _ticket.CustomerList; }
set
{
if (value == _ticket.CustomerList)
return;
_ticket.CustomerList = value;
//base.OnPropertyChanged("CustomerList");
}
}
Model
public ObservableCollection<Customer> CustomerList { get; set; }
public TicketModel(TableRepository repository)
{
CustomerList = new ObservableCollection<Customer>(repository.Customers);
}
EDIT: I am sure this is the wrong way to do this, I am still working on it. Here is the new model code:
public TicketModel(TableRepository repository)
{
CustomerList = new ObservableCollection<Customer>((from x in repository.Customers
select
new Customer
{
CM_CUSTOMER_ID = x.CM_CUSTOMER_ID,
CM_FULL_NAME = x.CM_FULL_NAME,
CM_COMPANY_ID = x.CM_COMPANY_ID
}).ToList());
}
This causes a new problem. Whenever you change tabs, the selection on the combo box is cleared.
MORE EDITS: This question I ran into when uses Rachels answer indicates that a static repository is bad practice because it leaves the DB connection open for the life of the program. I confirmed a connection remains open, but it looks like one remains open for non-static classes too. Here is the repository code:
using (BT8_Entity db = new BT8_Entity())
{
_companies = (from x in db.Companies where x.CO_INACTIVE == 0 select x).ToList();
_customers = (from x in db.Customers where x.CM_INACTIVE == 0 orderby x.CM_FULL_NAME select x).ToList();
_locations = (from x in db.Locations where x.LC_INACTIVE == 0 select x).ToList();
_departments = (from x in db.Departments where x.DP_INACTIVE == 0 select x).ToList();
_users = (from x in db.Users where x.US_INACTIVE == 0 select x).ToList();
}
_companies.Add(new Company { CO_COMPANY_ID = 0, CO_COMPANY_NAME = "" });
_companies.OrderBy(x => x.CO_COMPANY_NAME);
_departments.Add(new Department { DP_DEPARTMENT_ID = 0, DP_DEPARTMENT_NAME = "" });
_locations.Add(new Location { LC_LOCATION_ID = 0, LC_LOCATION_NAME = "" });
However, now I am back to the ugly code above which does not seem a good solution to copying the collection, as the Customer object needs to be manually recreated property by property in any code that needs its. It seems like this should be a very common thing to do, re-using lists, I feel like it should have a solution.
Custom objects, such as Customer get passed around by reference, not value. So even though you're creating a new ObservableCollection, it is still filled with the Customer objects that exist in your Repository. To make a truly new collection you'll need to create a new copy of each Customer object for your collection.
If you are creating multiple copies of the CustomerList because you want to filter the collection depending on your needs, you can use a CollectionViewSource instead of an ObservableCollection. This allows you to return a filtered view of a collection instead of the full collection itself.
EDIT
If not, have you considered using a static list for your ComboBox items, and just storing the SelectedItem in your model?
For example,
<ComboBox ItemsSource="{Binding Source={x:Static local:Lists.CustomerList}}"
SelectedItem="{Binding Customer}" />
This would fill the ComboBox with the ObservableCollection<Customer> CustomerList property that is found on the Static class Lists, and would bind the SelectedItem to the Model.Customer property
If the SelectedItem does not directly reference an item in the ComboBox's ItemsSource, you need to overwrite the Equals() of the item class to make the two values equal the same if their values are the same. Otherwise, it will compare the hash code of the two objects and decide that the two objects are not equal, even if the data they contain are the same. As an alternative, you can also bind SelectedValue and SelectedValuePath properties on the ComboBox instead of SelectedItem.
Imagine the following:
class Repository
{
private ObservableCollection<ModelClass> _allEntries;
public ObservableCollection<ModelClass> AllEntries
{
get { return _allEntries; }
set { _allEntries = value; }
}
public void RefreshDataFromDB()
{
_all = new ObservableCollection(GetMyData()); // whatever method there is
}
}
Now there are a couple of controls that bind to this collection, e.g.:
<ListView ItemsSource="{Binding Repository.AllEntries, ElementName=Whatever}"/>
The problem now is that if I call the RefreshDataFromDB the bindings get lost (at least it seems so) as the _all is now pointing to new memory part and the bindings still use the old reference. INotifyPropertyChanged does not help me in this case (e.g. putting it in RefreshDataFromDB does not help a lot).
The question would be - how would you handle a case where you replce a collection and want to update its consumers' bindings?
Yes; you're not modifying the collection, the UI is bound to the collection, and then you replace it with a new one.
You could do this:
_all.Clear();
_all.AddRange(GetMyData());
Hope that helps!
Alternatively, make AllEntries (or All.. your nomenclature seems to change a few times on the post ;)) a DependencyProperty:
public static DependencyProperty AllEntriesProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("AllEntries", typeof(ObservableCollection), typeof(MyClass));
You'd need to make the get/set property too, see here for an example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752914.aspx
I have a WPF view that displays a Shipment entity. I have a textblock that contains an asterisk which will alert a user that the record is changed but unsaved. I originally hoped to bind the visibility of this (with converter) to the Shipment.EntityState property.
If value = EntityState.Modified Then
Return Visibility.Visible
Else
Return Visibility.Collapsed
End If
The property gets updated just fine, but the view is ignorant of the change. What I need to know is, how can I get the UI to receive notification of the property change. If this cannot be done, is there a good way of writing my own IsDirty property that handles editing retractions (i.e. if I change the value of a property, then change it back to it's original it does not get counted as an edit, and state remains Unchanged).
Any help, as always, will be greatly appreciated.
Cory
After struggling with the same problem for a little bit, here is a solution that is working for me.
Lets say I have an entity called Trip that was generated by EF, I just needed to extend the class by means of partial class as showed below. The RaiseEntityStateChanged method is useful when you need to force a refresh of the EntytyState property, for example after calling the context's SaveChanges method.
partial class Trip
{
bool _forced = false;
System.Data.EntityState _lastState;
public Trip()
{
_lastState = EntityState;
this.PropertyChanged += (s, e) =>
{
if (_lastState != this.EntityState && e.PropertyName != "EntityState" || _forced)
{
_forced = false;
OnPropertyChanged("EntityState");
}
_lastState = this.EntityState;
};
}
public virtual void RaiseEntityStateChanged()
{
_forced = true;
OnPropertyChanged("EntityState");
}
}
I don't see a way to create a XAML binding on an existing property to do what you are trying to do. But you could write your own IsDirty property, based on the EntityState; you could update this value by subscribing to the PropertyChanged event raised by the base EntityObject. Of course, you'll need to also raise a PropertyChanged event for IsDirty (so that the GUI is notified) and ignore this event in your handler (to prevent infinite recursion).
Edit: added the following after question by OP:
This is how I see it, in order to answer the comment.
In the shipment class, one can add:
public bool IsDirty { get { return EntityState == EntityState.Modified; } }
public Shipment() {
...
PropertyChanged += OnShipmentChanged;
}
private void OnShipmentChanged(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs pcea) {
if (pcea.PropertyName != "IsDirty") { // prevent recursion
OnPropertyChanged("IsDirty"); // notifies binding listener that the state has changed
}
}
During the night, I thought of another way, which is to create a multi-binding on each Shipment property (which would replace this whole notion of an IsDirty property and would actually answer the original question). This could make sense if there are just a couple of Shipment properties. I'd say if there are more than 3, we should forget about this idea.
I have implemented Linq-To-Sql..
Add necessary table in it...
after that linq class will automatically set property for field..
I implemented one class using ObservableCollection class.. and pass datacontextclass object in its constructor...
so after getting all data how to filter it?
public class BindBookIssueDetails : ObservableCollection
{
public BindBookIssueDetails(DataClasses1DataContext dataDC)
{
foreach (Resource_Allocation_View res in dataDC.Resource_Allocation_Views)
{
this.Add(res);
}
}
}
private BindBookIssueDetails bResource;
bResource = new BindBookIssueDetails(db);
_cmbResource.ItemSource=bResource;
Please Help me.
You can use CollectionViewSource and filter it. So that it affect only at the View(.XAML) side
ICollectionView collectionView = CollectionViewSource.GetDefaultView(bResource);
collectionView.Filter = new Predicate<object>(YourFilterFunction);
Check out this blog for more details. http://bea.stollnitz.com/blog/?p=31
I tried to use #Jobi's solution but for some reason I got an exception trying to fire FilterFunction.
So I used a slightly different approach. I cast CollectionViewSource's DefaultView to a BindingListCollectionView
myVS=(BindingListCollectionView)CollectionViewSource.GetDefaultView(sourceofdata);
and now I can construct an SQL-like filter string and apply it like that:
myVS.CustomFilter=myfilterstring;
I will still try to resolve my problem (I presume #Jobi's solution is more flexible).