Bind to action method - mvvmcross

Is it possible to use a simple action method - just like with Caliburn.Micro - instead of a command with MvvmCross bindings?
Example:
public void Action()
{
Tip = 11;
}
<Button
android:text="Button"
android:layout_width="fill_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:id="#+id/button1"
local:MvxBind="Click Action" />
It doesn't work out of the box, I tested that.
While I found a lot of samples about adding new target bindings, I didn't find a single one about adding a new source binding.
UPDATE:
This works now out of the box with the Rio binding. To use it, add the MvvmCross MethodBinding NuGet package to the Android project.

Up until now, much of the emphasis for MvvmCross has been on allowing multi-platform target binding with the source remaining mainly 'vanilla' INotifyPropertyChanged.
There have been some deviation in terms of ViewModel structure - e.g.:
the MvxCommandCollection - http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fixing-mvvm-commands-making-hot-tuna.html
some users using Fody - http://twincoders.com/blog/codigo-limpio-con-fody/
Recently, several new feature requests have also been logged in this area:
AutoCommands - I think this is what you are asking about here - https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/issues/301
Rio binding sources - https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/issues/299
Tibet binding - https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/issues/298
Because of these, I do expect more functionality to be exposed in this area in the future...
With that said, if you wanted to get this working today, then MvvmCross Binding is overrideable so you could fairly easily do it:
1. Implement an ICommand that invokes a MethodInfo using reflection (for completeness this should probably also use a parameter if available) - some kind of InvokeMethodCommand (code for this left to the reader!)
.
2. Implement an MyMethodSourceBinding class which wraps the InvokeMethodCommand - something like:
public class MyMethodSourceBinding : MvxSourceBinding
{
private readonly MethodInfo _methodInfo;
protected MyMethodSourceBinding(object source, MethodInfo methodInfo)
: base(source)
{
_methodInfo = _methodInfo;
}
public override void SetValue(object value)
{
// do nothing - not allowed
}
public override Type SourceType
{
get { return typeof(ICommand); }
}
public override bool TryGetValue(out object value)
{
value = new InvokeMethodCommand(source, _methodInfo);
return true;
}
}
3. Override MvvmCross's registered IMvxSourceBindingFactory with your own implementation that can detect when a method is present - sadly most of this is cut and paste coding today - it would be something like
public class MySourceBindingFactory
: IMvxSourceBindingFactory
{
private IMvxSourcePropertyPathParser _propertyPathParser;
private IMvxSourcePropertyPathParser SourcePropertyPathParser
{
get
{
if (_propertyPathParser == null)
{
_propertyPathParser = Mvx.Resolve<IMvxSourcePropertyPathParser>();
}
return _propertyPathParser;
}
}
public IMvxSourceBinding CreateBinding(object source, string combinedPropertyName)
{
var tokens = SourcePropertyPathParser.Parse(combinedPropertyName);
return CreateBinding(source, tokens);
}
public IMvxSourceBinding CreateBinding(object source, IList<MvxPropertyToken> tokens)
{
if (tokens == null || tokens.Count == 0)
{
throw new MvxException("empty token list passed to CreateBinding");
}
var currentToken = tokens[0];
if (tokens.Count == 1)
{
return CreateLeafBinding(source, currentToken);
}
else
{
var remainingTokens = tokens.Skip(1).ToList();
return CreateChainedBinding(source, currentToken, remainingTokens);
}
}
private static MvxChainedSourceBinding CreateChainedBinding(object source, MvxPropertyToken propertyToken,
List<MvxPropertyToken> remainingTokens)
{
if (propertyToken is MvxIndexerPropertyToken)
{
return new MvxIndexerChainedSourceBinding(source, (MvxIndexerPropertyToken) propertyToken,
remainingTokens);
}
else if (propertyToken is MvxPropertyNamePropertyToken)
{
return new MvxSimpleChainedSourceBinding(source, (MvxPropertyNamePropertyToken) propertyToken,
remainingTokens);
}
throw new MvxException("Unexpected property chaining - seen token type {0}",
propertyToken.GetType().FullName);
}
private static IMvxSourceBinding CreateLeafBinding(object source, MvxPropertyToken propertyToken)
{
if (propertyToken is MvxIndexerPropertyToken)
{
return new MvxIndexerLeafPropertyInfoSourceBinding(source, (MvxIndexerPropertyToken) propertyToken);
}
else if (propertyToken is MvxPropertyNamePropertyToken)
{
//**************************
// Special code is here
var propertyToken = (MvxPropertyNamePropertyToken) propertyToken;
if (source != null)
{
var method = source.GetType().GetMethod(propertyToken.PropertyName, BindingFlags.FlattenHierarchy | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (method != null)
{
return new MyMethodSourceBinding(source, method);
}
}
return new MvxSimpleLeafPropertyInfoSourceBinding(source,
(MvxPropertyNamePropertyToken) propertyToken);
// Special code ends here
//**************************
}
else if (propertyToken is MvxEmptyPropertyToken)
{
return new MvxDirectToSourceBinding(source);
}
throw new MvxException("Unexpected property source - seen token type {0}", propertyToken.GetType().FullName);
}
}
4. Supply this source binding factory in your own custom binding builder - e.g.:
public class MyAndroidBindingBuilder
: MvxAndroidBindingBuilder
{
protected override IMvxSourceBindingFactory CreateSourceBindingFactory()
{
return new MvxSourceBindingFactory();
}
}
5. Supply this binding builder during your setup
public class Setup : MvxAndroidSetup
{
// ....
protected override MvxAndroidBindingBuilder CreateBindingBuilder()
{
return new MyAndroidBindingBuilder();
}
}
Note: This approach is only for advanced users right now... As suggested in the first part of this question, I do expect the code in this area to change quite a lot so you might also encounter some issues maintaining a fork in this area. (Indeed the code in this area has already changed quite significantly on the Tibet Binding branch within the GitHub repo!)

Related

AutoMapper - passing parameter to custom resolver weird behavior

Although I'm relatively new to AutoMapper I'm using it in a small project I'm developing. I've never had problems using it before but now I'm facing some weird behavior passing parameters to a Custom Resolver.
Here's the scenario: I get a list of messages from my repository and then map those to a frontend friendly version of it. Nothing fancy, just some normal mapping between objects. I have a field in that frontend object that tells if a certain user already voted for that message and that's what I'm using the Custom Resolver for (it's that second "ForMember"):
public List<SupportMessageUi> GetAllVisible(string userId)
{
Mapper.CreateMap<SupportMessage, SupportMessageUi>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Votes,
opt => opt.ResolveUsing<SupportMessageVotesResolver>())
.ForMember(dest => dest.UserVoted,
opt => opt.ResolveUsing<SupportMessagesUserVotedResolver>()
.ConstructedBy(() => new SupportMessagesUserVotedResolver(userId)));
var messages = _unitOfWork.MessagesRepository.Get(m => m.Visible);
var messagesUi = Mapper.Map<List<SupportMessageUi>>(messages);
return messagesUi;
}
I'm calling this method on a web service and the problem is: the first time I call the webservice (using the webservice console) it all runs perfectly. For example, if I pass '555' as the userId I get to this method with the correct value:
And in the Custom Resolver the value was correctly passed to the constructor:
The results returned are correct. The problem comes next. The second time I call the service, passing a different argument ('666' this time) the argument that gets to the constructor of the Custom Resolver is the old one ('555'). Here's what I mean:
Right before mapping the objects we can see that the value passed to the constructor was correct ('666'):
But when it gets to the constructor of the Resolver the value is wrong, and is the old one ('555'):
All subsequent calls to the service use the original value in the Custom Resolver constructor ('555'), independently of the value I pass to the service (also happens if I make the call from another browser). If I shut down the server and relaunch it I can pass a new parameter (that will be used in all other calls until I shut it down again).
Any idea on why this is happening?
It's happening because AutoMapper.CreateMap is a static method, and only needs to be called once. With the CreateMap code in your web method, you're trying to call it every time you call that method on your web service. Since the web server process stays alive between calls (unless you restart it, like you said) then the static mappings stay in place. Hence, the necessity of calling AutoMapper.Reset, as you said in your answer.
But it's recommended that you put your mapping creation in AppStart or Global or a static constructor or whatever, so you only call it once. There are ways to call Map that allow you to pass in values, so you don't need to try to finesse things with the constructor of your ValueResolver.
Here's an example using a ValueResolver (note the change to implementing IValueResolver instead of inheriting ValueResolver<TSource, TDestination>):
[Test]
public void ValueTranslator_ExtraMapParameters()
{
const int multiplier = 2;
ValueTranslator translator = new ValueTranslator();
Mapper.AssertConfigurationIsValid();
ValueSource source = new ValueSource { Value = 4 };
ValueDest dest = translator.Translate(source, multiplier);
Assert.That(dest.Value, Is.EqualTo(8));
source = new ValueSource { Value = 5 };
dest = translator.Translate(source, multiplier);
Assert.That(dest.Value, Is.EqualTo(10));
}
private class ValueTranslator
{
static ValueTranslator()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<ValueSource, ValueDest>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.Value, opt => opt.ResolveUsing<ValueResolver>().FromMember(src => src.Value));
}
public ValueDest Translate(ValueSource source, int multiplier)
{
return Mapper.Map<ValueDest>(source, opt => opt.Items.Add("multiplier", multiplier));
}
private class ValueResolver : IValueResolver
{
public ResolutionResult Resolve(ResolutionResult source)
{
return source.New((int)source.Value * (int)source.Context.Options.Items["multiplier"]);
}
}
}
private class ValueSource { public int Value { get; set; } }
private class ValueDest { public int Value { get; set; } }
And here's an example using a TypeConverter:
[Test]
public void TypeTranslator_ExtraMapParameters()
{
const int multiplier = 3;
TypeTranslator translator = new TypeTranslator();
Mapper.AssertConfigurationIsValid();
TypeSource source = new TypeSource { Value = 10 };
TypeDest dest = translator.Translate(source, multiplier);
Assert.That(dest.Value, Is.EqualTo(30));
source = new TypeSource { Value = 15 };
dest = translator.Translate(source, multiplier);
Assert.That(dest.Value, Is.EqualTo(45));
}
private class TypeTranslator
{
static TypeTranslator()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<TypeSource, TypeDest>()
.ConvertUsing<TypeConverter>();
}
public TypeDest Translate(TypeSource source, int multiplier)
{
return Mapper.Map<TypeDest>(source, opt => opt.Items.Add("multiplier", multiplier));
}
private class TypeConverter : ITypeConverter<TypeSource, TypeDest>
{
public TypeDest Convert(ResolutionContext context)
{
TypeSource source = (TypeSource)context.SourceValue;
int multiplier = (int)context.Options.Items["multiplier"];
return new TypeDest { Value = source.Value * multiplier };
}
}
}
private class TypeSource { public int Value { get; set; } }
private class TypeDest { public int Value { get; set; } }
Answering myself: I was not using AutoMapper.Reset(). Once I did that everything started working properly.
Helpful reading: http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2010/01/27/automapper-dont-forget-mapper-reset-at-the-start/

DTO to specific object conversion pattern

The architecture: Win8 app + local Web API Self-Host share a common "Contracts" project.
The Web API returns very general contract types (IEnumerable etc.).
Within the Win8 app I want to convert these contracts to concrete MVVM compatible model objects which use ObservableCollection for example instead of IEnumerables.
I would have loved to use AutoMapper for this task but it is not compatible with the WinRT.
I used AutoMapper some time ago, but now I generally use a specific class to do this work so I can test it and implement "strange" logic. This class is responsible for the mapping in the 2 direction (if both are needed).
Sometimes, because I'm lazy ;-), I have used an implicit conversion operator to simplify the conversion, but I think that conceptually a constructor for the dto could be better:
public class ItemDto
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
public String Description { get; set; }
public static implicit operator ItemDto (Item item)
{
var dto = new ItemDto()
{
Id = item.Id,
Description = item.LongDescription
};
return dto;
}
In all these cases, I think that the possibility to test your mapping has a great value.
You can to use reflection ( System.Reflection) for mapper yours DTOs by yourself, in a loop by the properties and mapping using the portable CLR types.
Thank you for your suggestions.
I solved it in a non-generic fashion, for every model I do have a specific converter that does the job. What do you think?
using Project.Contracts;
using Project.Models;
namespace Project.Converters.Contracts
{
public static class ProductConverter
{
public static ProductContract ToContract(this Product model)
{
if (model == null)
{
return new ProductContract();
}
return new ProductContract
{
Id = model.Id,
Name = mode.Name,
Tags = model.Tags.ToContracts()
};
}
public static ICollection<ProductContract> ToContracts(this IEnumerable<Product> models)
{
if (models == null)
{
return new Collection<ProductContract>();
}
return models.Select(m => m.ToContract()).ToList();
}
public static Product ToModel(this ProductContract contract)
{
if (contract == null)
{
return new Product();
}
return new Product
{
Id = contract.Id,
Name = contract.Name,
Tags = contract.Tags.ToModels()
};
}
public static ObservableCollection<Product> ToModels(this IEnumerable<ProductContract> contracts)
{
if (contracts == null)
{
return new ObservableCollection<Product>();
}
return new ObservableCollection<Product>(contracts.Select(c => c.ToModel()));
}
}
}

How can I do dependency injection into action filters in ASP.NET 4 RC WebAPI?

I'm using Windsor to manage IoC for my controllers in a WebAPI project. I've got a DependencyResolver working nicely to resolve controller dependencies, but now I'm looking to inject dependencies into a custom action filter I'm using to manage authentication.
I've looked into using a custom ActionInvoker but it's not clear from the interface that WebAPI is using how I would go about resolving property dependencies on the custom action filter attribute before it executes. Anyone have a good example of how to do this in the MVC 4 RC?
EDIT: I'm aware you can't do constructor injection on filters, because they're attributes and therefore instantiated by the .NET framework - but I'm hoping there's some point in the execution lifecycle that happens AFTER the filter is instantiated but BEFORE it gets executed, where I could run some custom code to enumerate across the filters' public properties and inject the necessary services.
Action filters are attributes. In .NET attribute the instantiation process is managed by the .NET runtime and you don't have control over it. So one possibility is to use Poor Man's Dependency Injection which I would personally advice you against.
Another possibility is to use a marker attribute:
public class MyActionFilterAttribute : Attribute
{
}
and then have the action filter using constructor injection:
public class MyActionFilter : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private readonly IFoo _foo;
public MyActionFilter(IFoo foo)
{
_foo = foo;
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
if (actionContext.ActionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes<MyActionFilterAttribute>().Any())
{
// The action is decorated with the marker attribute =>
// do something with _foo
}
}
}
and then register it as a global action filter in Application_Start:
IFoo foo = ....
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Filters.Add(new MyActionFilter(foo));
I had the same problem, but decided to go for the ServiceLocator (DependencyResolver.GetService) for this, as its in the framework it seems to me to be a valid approach
public class RequiresSessionAttribute :
ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
var sessionService =
(ISessionService) actionContext
.ControllerContext.Configuration.DependencyResolver
.GetService(typeof (ISessionService));
var sessionId = HttpUtility
.ParseQueryString(actionContext.Request.RequestUri.Query)
.Get("sessionId");
if (sessionId == null
|| !sessionService.IsValid(sessionId))
throw new SessionException();
base.OnActionExecuting(actionContext);
}
}
and here is a test for this attribute, bit of a pain but possible
public class requires_sessionId
{
[Fact]
void can_call_action_with_session_id()
{
var context = GetContext("http://example.com/?sessionId=blaa");
var sut = new RequiresSessionAttribute();
Assert.DoesNotThrow(
() => sut.OnActionExecuting(context));
}
[Fact]
void can_not_call_action_without_session_id()
{
var context = GetContext("http://example.com/");
var sut = new RequiresSessionAttribute();
Assert.Throws<SessionException>(
() => sut.OnActionExecuting(context));
}
HttpActionContext GetContext(string url)
{
var sessionServiceMock = new Mock<ISessionService>();
sessionServiceMock
.Setup(x => x.IsValid(It.IsAny<string>()))
.Returns(true);
var dependancyResolverMock = new Mock<IDependencyResolver>();
dependancyResolverMock
.Setup(x => x.GetService(It.IsAny<Type>()))
.Returns(sessionServiceMock.Object);
var config = new HttpConfiguration
{
DependencyResolver = dependancyResolverMock.Object
};
var controllerContext = new HttpControllerContext
{
Configuration = config,
Request = new HttpRequestMessage(
HttpMethod.Get,
url)
};
return
new HttpActionContext
{
ControllerContext = controllerContext,
};
}
}

How to determine lazy-loaded properties at runtime on a linq table?

I am iterating over the properties of various mapped tables in my code and need to know whether or not each property is lazy loaded. I have found that the instance variable used for storage, denoted by the Storage attribute on the property, will be of type System.Data.Linq.Link.
Is there a way that I can leverage these two facts at runtime to solve this problem?
Code:
public void LazyLoad(Type tableType)
{
foreach (var prop in tableType.GetGenericArguments()[0].GetProperties())
{
if (/* IS LAZY LOADED */)
{
//real work here...
Console.WriteLine(prop.Name);
}
}
}
The mappings look like this:
public partial class Address
{
private System.Data.Linq.Link<string> _City;
[Column(Storage="_City", DbType="...")]
public string City
{
get { /* ... */ }
set { /* ... */ }
}
}
You are almost there. Just a spoon full of reflection helps the medicine go down ;-)
private static bool IsLazyLoadedProperty(PropertyInfo property)
{
var column = property.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ColumnAttribute), true)[0]
as ColumnAttribute;
var field = property.DeclaringType.GetField(column.Storage,
BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
if (!field.FieldType.IsGenericType)
{
return false;
}
return field.FieldType.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(Link<>);
}

Howto allow any data type to be returned by a function in actionscript 3?

I have a static Settings class where my application can retrieve settings from. The problem is that some of these settings are strings, while others are ints or numbers. Example:
package
{
public final class Settings
{
public static function retrieve(msg:String)
{
switch (msg)
{
case "register_link":
return "http://test.com/client/register.php";
break;
case "time_limit":
return 50;
break;
}
}
}
}
Now, in the first case it should send a string and in the second a uint. However, how do I set this in the function declarement? Instead of eg. function retrieve(msg:String):String or ...:uint? If I don't set any data type, I get a warning.
HanClinto has answered your question, but I would like to also just make a note of another possible solution that keeps the return types, typed. I also find it to be a cleaner solution.
Rather than a static retrieve function, you could just use static consts, such as:
package
{
public final class Settings
{
public static const REGISTER_LINK:String = "my link";
public static const TIME_LIMIT:uint= 50;
}
}
And so forth. It's personal preference, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Use *
public static function retrieve(msg:String):*
{
if (msg == "age") {
return 23;
} else {
return "hi!";
}
}