I'm trying to implement Login system like this:
public Command LoginCommand => new Command(async () =>
{
LoginModel model = new LoginModel("dnetTest", "dnetTest"); // (get value from entry instead of "dnetTest")
if (model.CheckInformation())
{
bool isSuccess = await LoginService.Login(model);
if (isSuccess)
{
await Application.Current.MainPage.DisplayAlert("Пријављивање", "Успешно сте се пријавили", "OK.");
Application.Current.MainPage = new MainPage();
}
}
My LogingPage also have:
<Label Text="Korisničko ime"/>
<Entry x:Name="Entry_Username" Placeholder="Korisničko ime"/>
<Label Text="Lozinka"/>
<Entry x:Name="Entry_Password" Placeholder="Lozinka"/>
<Button Text="Prijavi se" Command="{Binding LoginCommand}"/>
So, my question is how to bind Entry_Username and Entry_Password with LoginModel in LoginViewModel?
And is there any way to bind it without using x:Names?
To be fair; this is a very basic MVVM question that is easy to find, of which the solution is in multiple blogs and pages. But, let me help you get started.
And is there any way to bind it without using x:Names?
The whole point of data binding is that you do not have to make any hard references to these controls. We want to separate the logic from the UI so that we can easily replace one or both without having to touch the other. For instance, say that you want to implement a new design, if you use data binding, you can just show the current properties in the view model (or page model as it is referred to in the Xamarin space as well) if you reference those in your new UI.
If you would have all kind of x:Name references, you would not only have to touch your UI, but also the view model and go through all the references to those fields and replace them as well.
Using data binding promotes reusability and testability mostly.
As for your specific case. I can't see your full code, so there will be some assumptions made here. First, I'm going to assume that your LoginCommand lives in a view model of its own right now. You are already using data binding there, which is good. I don't directly see why you would need a separate model for the view model and the login, possibly your LoginModel is more like a service. Also, I'm assuming you're doing this manually, without the help of an MVVM framework. It's good to know what happens under the hood, but I would recommend looking at using an MVVM framework like FreshMvvm or Prism for example.
The login page that holds your XAML, I will call LoginPage.xaml which should have a LoginPage.xaml.cs code-behind file. In there, go into the constructor and specify this line:
public LoginPage()
{
InitializeComponents();
// This line is relevant here
BindingContext = new LoginViewModel();
}
Seeing that your LoginCommand is already using data binding, this is probably here already.
Now, in your LoginPage.xaml, change your XAML to this:
<Label Text="Korisničko ime"/>
<Entry Text="{Binding Username}" Placeholder="Korisničko ime"/>
<Label Text="Lozinka"/>
<Entry Text="{Binding Password}" Placeholder="Lozinka"/>
<Button Text="Prijavi se" Command="{Binding LoginCommand}"/>
Notice how I removed the x:Name attributes and added the Text attributes on the two Entry controls.
Next, go into your LoginViewModel.cs and add two properties, like this:
public string Username { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
Whenever the text changes in your Entry controls, these properties should contain the value accordingly. Now, you can change the code you posted to something like this:
public Command LoginCommand => new Command(async () =>
{
// Notice how I changed this line
LoginModel model = new LoginModel(Username, Password);
if (model.CheckInformation())
{
bool isSuccess = await LoginService.Login(model);
if (isSuccess)
{
await Application.Current.MainPage.DisplayAlert("Пријављивање", "Успешно сте се пријавили", "OK.");
Application.Current.MainPage = new MainPage();
}
}
This should work for you!
As mentioned, I would recommend looking further into MVVM as a whole and also MVVM frameworks. Here is the official Docs page, a good writeup by Adam Pedley and something I wrote myself a while back.
Related
I'm using the MapControl for Windows 10 and binding it's Center property to my view model like so:
<Maps:MapControl x:Name="MapControl" Center="{Binding MapCenter, Mode=TwoWay}" />
This works, but I'd like to use a parabolic animation when transitioning the map from one center position to the next when my view model changes. I'd like it to behave the way it would if I had called TrySetViewAsync from my code behind passing a MapAnimationKind:
MapControl.TrySetViewAsync(geopoint, 13, null, null, Maps.MapAnimationKind.Bow)
How can I achieve this effect while maintaining separation of concerns?
With the help of MVVMLight Messenger, we can trigger it from the ViewModel easily.
About how to use MVVM Light in Windows 10 Universal App, see my answer in this one.
For example, the following method is placed in MainPage.xaml.cs:
private async void SetMapView(Geopoint point)
{
await MainMap.TrySetViewAsync(point, 13,0,0,Windows.UI.Xaml.Controls.Maps.MapAnimationKind.Bow);
}
Register the MainPage.xaml.cs to the default messenger provided by MVVMLight
Messenger.Default.Register<Geopoint>(this, Constants.SetMapViewToken, SetMapView);
Used a string Constants.SetMapViewToken as a token to identify the message and assigned SetMapView as an action
internal class Constants
{
public static string SetMapViewToken = "SetMapView";
}
Trigger SetMapView method in ViewModel:
Messenger.Default.Send<Geopoint>(MyLocation.Coordinate.Point, Constants.SetMapViewToken);
I've created a completed sample and uploaded to Github.
Enjoy it:)
My current set up:
Xamarin Forms, consisting of iOS, Android, WP app and shared PCL.
Using MVVM Light to keep a nice separation of concerns.
Brief intro into what I want to achieve. I want to have a Base page that has a Cancel and Next button. On pressing the Next button Content is loaded dynamically within that base page.
Xaml View:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<ContentPage xmlns="http://xamarin.com/schemas/2014/forms"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2009/xaml"
x:Class="LogInPresenterView">
<ContentPage.ToolbarItems>
<ToolbarItem Text="Cancel" Priority="0" Order="Primary" Command="{Binding Cancel}"></ToolbarItem>
<ToolbarItem Text="Next" Priority="1" Order="Primary" Command="{Binding Next}"></ToolbarItem>
</ContentPage.ToolbarItems>
</ContentPage>
ViewModel Code:
public class LogInPresenterViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
public LogInPresenterViewModel() {}
private RelayCommand _next;
public RelayCommand Next
{
get
{
return _next ?? (_next = new RelayCommand(async () => await DoNext()));
}
}
private async Task DoNext()
{
// IN HERE I WOULD LIKE TO DYNCAMICALLY LOAD CONTENT / VIEWS
}
}
Usually you would have a StackLayout etc before the element. However, on clicking the Next Toolbar Item I want to dynamically load content (that has a viewmodel).
So maybe my ICommand for my next button checked to see what the current content type was, and depending on that I would load another bit of content.
The scenario would be, the base page would load along with the first bit of content - Enter Email and Password. User enters that then clicks on next, if all ok, the content is replaced with the option to enter a security code, keeping the base Close and Next buttons at the top.
Hopefully this makes sense. I know what I want to do in my head, I just don't know how to translate that into Xamarin Forms...
Ok,
So first job is to create your region service in your PCL. This will look something like this:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace xxx
{
public class RegionService : IRegionService
{
private Dictionary<string, object> _regionDictionary;
public RegionService ()
{
_regionDictionary = new Dictionary<string, object> ();
}
#region IRegionService implementation
public bool RegisterRegion (string regionName, object regionObject)
{
object region = null;
_regionDictionary.TryGetValue (regionName, out region);
if (region != null)
_regionDictionary [regionName] = regionObject;
else
_regionDictionary.Add (regionName, regionObject);
return true;
}
public object ResolveRegion (string regionName)
{
object region = null;
_regionDictionary.TryGetValue (regionName, out region);
if (region == null)
throw new RegionServiceException ("Unable to resolve region with given name");
return region;
}
#endregion
}
}
This when you create your page with the dynamic content register your dynamic contentview in your code behind:
ContentView contentView = this.FindById<ContentView>("myContentView");
regionService.RegisterRegion("DynamicView", contentView);
You'll need to create an interface for your views and pages to use to indicate which region they wish to be presented in:
using System;
namespace xxx
{
public interface IRegionView
{
string GetRegionName ();
}
}
Then in your code behind for your view implement this interface to return the name of the region to display in.
You now need a custom presenter to use this region code. I use MVVMCross, so the details will vary for the MVVM implementation you are using, but essentially something like this is what you need:
public async static Task PresentPage(Page page)
{
if (typeof(IRegionView).GetTypeInfo().IsAssignableFrom(page.GetType().GetTypeInfo()))
{
IRegionService regionService = Mvx.Resolve<IRegionService>();
string regionName = (page as IRegionView).GetRegionName();
Page region = regionService.ResolveRegion(regionName) as Page;
if (typeof(IModalPage).GetTypeInfo().IsAssignableFrom(page.GetType().GetTypeInfo()))
await region.Navigation.PushModalAsync(page);
else if (typeof(IPopupPage).GetTypeInfo().IsAssignableFrom(page.GetType().GetTypeInfo()))
region.PushOverlayPage(page);
else if (typeof(NavigationPage).GetTypeInfo().IsAssignableFrom(region.GetType().GetTypeInfo()))
await (region as NavigationPage).PushAsync(page);
}
}
I hope this is useful for you :)
So if this was me. I would create a region service where the contentview registers a unique region name.
Content would then be marked to use that region, and a custom presenter can be used to show the view model's content in the appropriate region.
I'm on my phone whilst travelling at the moment but I can post some code later on if that helps :)
Tristan
You can dynamically load Xamarin Forms UI with XAML.
Old Answer:
This can be achieved with the use of the LoadFromXaml method. It works in the same was as XamlReader.Load in Silverlight/WPF. It is a hidden method that can be only accessed through reflection. There is an article on how to do it here:
http://www.cazzulino.com/dynamic-forms.html
But, I would like to ask to you go to this feature request at Xamarin and ask that the method be made public so that it becomes a fully supported feature:
https://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/comment/252626
User requests page for Step1, fills out and submits form that contains selected person, so far so good. After validation of ModelState the next viewmodel is constructed properly using the selected person. I then attempt a redirect to action using the newVM but find on entry to Step2 that MVC wipes out the viewmodel attempted to be passed in. I suspect this is due to how MVC attempts to new up and instance based on query string results. I'll put a breakpoint in and check that, but am wondering how does one change a view from a post back with a new view model passed in?
public ActionResult Step1()
{
var vm = new VMStep1();
return View(vm);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Step1(VMStep1 vm)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var newVM = new VMStep2(vm.SelectedPerson);
return RedirectToAction("Step2", newVM);
}
return View(vm);
}
public ActionResult Step2(VMStep2 vm)
{
return View(vm);
}
I can fix this by containing VMStep2 and a partial to Step2 in Step1 view, but that requires hide and seek logic when really I just want user to see Step2.
I don't see why you should want to call RedirectToAction! What it does it the following:
it tells your browser to redirect and like it or not your browser doesn't understand how to handle your object -- what it does understand is JSON. So if you really insist on using return RedirectToAction("Step2", newVM); you should consider a way to serialize your VMStep2 object to JSON and when the browser requests the Redirect, it will be properly passed and created in your action method public ActionResult Step2(VMStep2 vm)
HOWEVER I'd use a much simpler way ---
instead of
return RedirectToAction("Step2", newVM);
I would use
return View("Step2", newVM);
Thanks to everyone for the great input!
Here's what I did...
I created three views MainView, Step1View, Step2View (Step 1 and 2 were partial strong typed views)
I created a MainViewModel that contained VMStep1 and VMStep2
When controller served Step1 the MainViewModel only initialized VMStep1 and set state logic to tell MainView Step1 was to be shown.
When user posted back the MainView containing the MainViewModel, the MainViewModel knew what to do by the answers provided in VMStep1.
VMStep2 was initialized on the post back, and state was set to tell MainView to show Step2. VMStep1 was no longer relevant and was set to null.
User was now able to answer using VMStep2 and all was well.
The key to this working is that some flag tells the view which partial to show, the partial takes a model supporting it's strong type which is initialized at the right time. End result is fast rendering and good state machine progression.
I've got a Manage User event that takes an an optional userID and displays a user edit screen. There is a manageUserViewModel to go with this screen.
My Manage page has some dependencies - eg, PageTitle, what method to submit to, etc.
If I validate-fail, I need to show the manage screen again, but this time, using the view-model that was passed into the same method.
Supplying these dependencies in the fail scenario isn't very DRY.
How do I step repeating the dependencies? I tried putting them into a separate method, but that does not feel right.
public ActionResult Manage(Guid? UserID)
{
User user = this._UserLogic.GetUser(UserID);
ViewBag.Title = "User List";
ViewBag.OnSubmit = "Save";
ManageUserViewModel uvm = Mapper.Map<User, ManageUserViewModel>(user);
return View("Manage", uvm);
}
[AcceptVerbs("POST")]
public ActionResult Save(ManageUserViewModel uvm)
{
User user = this._UserLogic.GetUser(uvm.UserID);
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
// This is not very DRY!!!
ViewBag.Title = "Manage User";
ViewBag.OnSubmit = "Save";
return View("Manage", uvm);
}
Mapper.Map<ManageUserViewModel, User>(uvm, user );
this._UserLogic.SaveUser(user);
return RedirectToAction("Manage", new { UserID = user.ID });
}
I think you misunderstand DRY. DRY does not mean "NEVER repeat yourself", it means that you should not repeat yourself when it makes sense not to.
Different views have different requirements, and creating a complex structure just to avoid repeating yourself violates other best practices, like KISS, and SRP.
SOLID is interesting because Single Responsibility Principle is often at odds with Don't Repeat Yourself, and you have to come up with a balance. In most cases, DRY loses because SRP is far more important.
It looks to me like you have code here that is handling multiple responsibilities just so you can avoid writing similar code more than once. I disagree with doing that, because each view has different responsibilities and different requirements.
I would suggest just creating separate controller actions, views, and models for each action, particularly if the validation requirements are different for them. There may be a few things you can do (like using Partial Views or Editor Templates) to reduce repetition, but in general don't add lots of complexity just to avoid repetition.
You could add the 'Manager User' Title and 'Save' OnSubmit strings as properties of on the ManageUserViewModel. This means that you would not have to add them to the ViewBag each time you called Save.
You could also make a ManageUserService which could be responsible for the AutoMapper mappings and saving the user.
You code would then look like this:
public ActionResult Manage(Guid? UserID)
{
var uvm = _userService.GetById(UserId);
return View("Manage", uvm);
}
[AcceptVerbs("POST")]
public ActionResult Save(ManageUserViewModel uvm)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View("Save", uvm);
}
_userService.Save(uvm);
return RedirectToAction("Manage", new { UserID = uvm.ID });
}
Just put the CRUD logic and AutoMapping functionality in the a class called UserService, and instance of which can be injected using Inversion of Control into your controller.
If you don't want to hard-code your string values into the view model itself, then you could add the values to an ApplicationResources file and reference those from the view model.
You will have to find some way to preserve this information between requests, which either means passing it back and forth between the client and server or saving it on the server. Saving it on the server means something like session but this feels a little heavy to me. You could add it to your ViewModel as #Ryan Spears suggested. To me that feels a little wrong, polluting the ViewModel with something that might be considered metadata. But that is just an opinion and I am not discrediting his answer because it is valid. Another possibility would be to just add the extra fields to the parameter list of the action method itself and use hidden fields.
[AcceptVerbs("POST")]
public ActionResult Save(ManageUserViewModel uvm, string title, string onSubmit)
{
...
}
In the form add:
<input type="hidden" name="title" value="#ViewBag.Title" />
<input type="hidden" name="onSubmit" value="#ViewBag.OnSubmit" />
This is essentially the same concept and solution as adding them to the ViewModel except in this situation they are not actually part of the ViewModel.
You can use RedirectToAction() and then export and import your tempdata (to maintain the ModelState) if you're worried about the 3 lines.
Personally I'd find it a lot more readable if you kept the logic in the POST version of the method, as you're performing something slightly different from the GET method, therefore not really repeating yourself. You could you probably keep the two ViewBag variables you have inside the View, and then there's no repetition at all.
As a side note: [HttpPost] now supersedes [AcceptVerbs]
We have come up with another solution that I thought I would share.
This based on the view-model containing info on what actions it can do, but we feel the controller should be specifying these (ie, controlling what actions different links route to) these because we have cases where the view-models are reused across actions. EG, the case where when you edit you can edit a template or an instance of something - the UI is the same, the only difference is the actions you post to/cancel from.
We abstracted away the part of the view-model that contains the data bound properties and the view model that contains other things we need for the view to render. We call the property-only object a DTO - it's not a true dto because it contains validation attributes.
We figure that we might be able to re-use these DTO's in the future for ajax or even XML requests - it, can keep validation DRY.
Anyway - here is an example of the code, we are happy with it (for now) and hope it helps others.
[HttpGet]
[ValidateInput(false)]
public virtual ActionResult ManageUser(ManageUserDTO dto, bool PopulateFromObject = true)
{
User user = this._UserLogic.GetUser(dto.UserID);
if (PopulateFromObject)
Mapper.Map<User, ManageUserDTO>(user, dto);
ManageUserViewModel vm = new ManageUserViewModel()
{
DTO = dto,
PageTitle = Captions.GetCaption("pageTitle_EditUser"),
OnSubmit = GetSubmitEventData(this.ControllerName, "SaveUser"),
OnCancel = GetCancelEventData(this.ControllerName, "ListUsers"),
};
return View("ManageUser", vm);
}
[HttpPost]
public virtual ActionResult SaveUser(ManageUserViewModel vm)
{
User user = this._UserLogic.GetUser(vm.DTO.UserID);
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return ManageUser(vm.DTO, false);
}
Mapper.Map<ManageUserDTO, User>(vm.DTO, user);
this._UserLogic.SaveUser(user);
TempData.AddSuccess(Captions.GetCaption("message_UserSavedSuccessfuly"));
return RedirectToAction("ManageUser", new { UserID = user.ID });
}
The model-binder will set any URI variables into the dto in the get action. My logic layer will return a new User object if a call to getUserByID(null) is made.
I am currently working on an Umbraco MVC 4 project version 6.0.5. The project currently uses Vega.USiteBuilder to build the appropriate document types in the backoffice based on strongly typed classes with mapping attributes. Consequently, all my razor files inherit from UmbracoTemplatePageBase
I am coming across a road block trying to invoke a HTTP GET from a razor file. For example a search form with multiple fields to submit to a controller action method, using a SurfaceController using Html.BeginUmbracoForm.
My Html.BeginUmbracoForm looks like this
#using (Html.BeginUmbracoForm("FindTyres", "TyreSearch"))
{
// Couple of filter fields
}
I basically have a scenario where I will like to retrieve some records from an external database outside of Umbraco (external to Umbraco Database) and return the results in a custom view model back to my Umbraco front end view. Once my controller and action method is setup to inherit from SurfaceController and thereafter compiling it and submitting the search, I get a 404 resource cannot be found where the requested url specified: /umbraco.RenderMVC.
Here is my code snippet:
public ActionResult FindTyres(string maker, string years, string models, string vehicles)
{
var tyreBdl = new Wheels.BDL.TyreBDL();
List<Tyre> tyres = tyreBdl.GetAllTyres();
tyres = tyres.Where(t => string.Equals(t.Maker, maker, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
&& string.Equals(t.Year, years, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
&& string.Equals(t.Model, models, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
&& string.Equals(t.Version, vehicles, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).ToList();
var tyreSearchViewModel = new TyreSearchViewModel
{
Tyres = tyres
};
ViewBag.TyreSearchViewModel = tyreSearchViewModel;
return CurrentUmbracoPage();
}
I then resort to using standard MVC, Html.BeginForm (the only difference). Repeating the steps above and submitting the search, I get the following YSOD error.
Can only use UmbracoPageResult in the context of an Http POST when
using a SurfaceController form
Below is a snippet of the HTML BeginForm
#using (Html.BeginForm("FindTyres", "TyreSearch"))
{
// Couple of filter fields
}
I feel like I am fighting the Umbraco routes to get my controller to return a custom model back to the razor file. I have googled alot trying to figure out how to do a basic search to return a custom model back to my Umbraco front end view till the extent that I tried to create a custom route but that too did not work for me.
Does my controller need to inherit from a special umbraco controller class to return the custom model back? I will basically like to invoke a HTTP GET request (which is a must) so that my criteria search fields are reflected properly in the query strings of the url. For example upon hitting the search button, I must see the example url in my address browser bar
http://[domainname]/selecttyres.aspx/TyresSearch/FindTyresMake=ASIA&Years=1994&Models=ROCSTA&Vehicles=261
Therefore, I cannot use Surface Controller as that will operate in the context of a HTTP Post.
Are there good resource materials that I can read up more on umbraco controllers, routes and pipeline.
I hope this scenario makes sense to you. If you have any questions, please let me know. I will need to understand this concept to continue on from here with my project and I do have a deadline.
There are a lot of questions about this and the best place to look for an authoritative approach is the Umbraco MVC documentation.
However, yes you will find, if you use Html.BeginUmbracoForm(...) you will be forced into a HttpPost action. With this kind of functionality (a search form), I usually build the form manually with a GET method and have it submit a querystring to a specific node URL.
<form action="#Model.Content.Url"> ... </form>
On that page I include an #Html.Action("SearchResults", "TyresSearch") which itself has a model that maps to the keys in the querystring:
[ChildAction]
public ActionResult(TyreSearchModel model){
// Find results
TyreSearchResultModel results = new Wheels.BDL.TyreBDL().GetAllTyres();
// Filter results based on submitted model
...
// Return results
return results;
}
The results view just need to have a model of TyreSearchResultModel (or whatever you choose).
This approach bypasses the need for Umbraco's Controller implementation and very straightforward.
I have managed to find my solution through route hijacking which enabled me to return a custom view model back to my view and work with HTTP GET. It worked well for me.
Digby, your solution looks plausible but I have not attempted at it. If I do have a widget sitting on my page, I will definitely attempt to use your approach.
Here are the details. I basically override the Umbraco default MVC routing by creating a controller that derived from RenderMvcController. In a nutshell, you implement route hijacking by implementing a controller that derives from RenderMvcController and renaming your controllername after your given documenttype name. Recommend the read right out of the Umbraco reference (http://our.umbraco.org/documentation/Reference/Mvc/custom-controllers) This is also a great article (http://www.ben-morris.com/using-umbraco-6-to-create-an-asp-net-mvc-4-web-applicatio)
Here is my snippet of my code:
public class ProductTyreSelectorController : Umbraco.Web.Mvc.RenderMvcController
{
public override ActionResult Index(RenderModel model)
{
var productTyreSelectorViewModel = new ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(model);
var maker = Request.QueryString["Make"];
var years = Request.QueryString["Years"];
var models = Request.QueryString["Models"];
var autoIdStr = Request.QueryString["Vehicles"];
var width = Request.QueryString["Widths"];
var aspectRatio = Request.QueryString["AspectRatio"];
var rims = Request.QueryString["Rims"];
var tyrePlusBdl = new TPWheelBDL.TyrePlusBDL();
List<Tyre> tyres = tyrePlusBdl.GetAllTyres();
if (Request.QueryString.Count == 0)
{
return CurrentTemplate(productTyreSelectorViewModel);
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(maker) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(years) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(models) &&
!string.IsNullOrEmpty(autoIdStr))
{
int autoId;
int.TryParse(autoIdStr, out autoId);
tyres = tyres.Where(t => string.Equals(t.Maker, maker, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
string.Equals(t.Year, years, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
string.Equals(t.Model, models, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
t.AutoID == autoId)
.ToList();
productTyreSelectorViewModel.Tyres = tyres;
}
else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(width) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(aspectRatio) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(rims))
{
tyres = tyres.Where(t => string.Equals(t.Aspect, aspectRatio, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
string.Equals(t.Rim, rims, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).ToList();
productTyreSelectorViewModel.Tyres = tyres;
}
var template = ControllerContext.RouteData.Values["action"].ToString();
//return an empty content result if the template doesn't physically
//exist on the file system
if (!EnsurePhsyicalViewExists(template))
{
return Content("Could not find physical view template.");
}
return CurrentTemplate(productTyreSelectorViewModel);
}
}
Note my ProductTyreSelectorViewModel must inherit from RenderModel for this to work and my document type is called ProductTyreSelector. This way when my model is returned with the action result CurrentTemplate, the Umbraco context of the page is retained and my page is rendered appropriately again. This way, all my query strings will show all my search/filter fields which is what I want.
Here is my snippet of the ProductTyreSelectorViewModel class:
public class ProductTyreSelectorViewModel : RenderModel
{
public ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(RenderModel model)
: base(model.Content, model.CurrentCulture)
{
Tyres = new List<Tyre>();
}
public ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(IPublishedContent content, CultureInfo culture)
: base(content, culture)
{
}
public ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(IPublishedContent content)
: base(content)
{
}
public IList<Tyre> Tyres { get; set; }
}
This approach will work well perhaps with one to two HTTP GET forms on a given page. If there are multiple forms within in a page, then a good solution will may be to use ChildAction approach. Something I will experiment with further.
Hope this helps!