MVC Pattern - Is this the correct approach for Repository / Unit of Work

Question

I have been doodling and reading and just want to ensure the approach I am taking is correct. I am using MVC5 with EF, implementing the Repository and Unit of Work patterns.

EntityModel -> <- SomeRepository
SomeRepository -> <- SomeController
SomeController -> SomeViewModel
SomeViewModel -> SomeView
SomeView -> SomeController
SomeController -> <- SomeRepository
etc ..

In the controller I am planning on using something like AutoMapper to map the ViewModel to the EntityModel (and vice versa) which can then be passed to my repository / view.

Also, with this approach I am not 100% sure where my business logic should go. For instance, if I have an EntityModel for products and I wanted to add a GetAssociatedProducts method, would this go against the EntityModel or should another tier be introduced so the EntityModel is just a straightforward mapping class to the DB?

Should the ViewModel contain any logic at all? i.e Creating a Dictionary to populate a dropdown on the view based on values from the EntityModel?

I am trying to avoid the issues associated with just starting to code without thinking to much into how which is the reason for this question.

Note: I am also implementing IoC with Autofac but I don't think that's relevant at this point (saying just in case it is).

Answer 1

Well, you're already thinking too much.

First, since you specifically mention MVC, let me just say that the vast majority of what you're talking about is not MVC. MVC stands for Model-View-Controller. In the strictest sense, your model is the haven of all business logic for your application. The controller merely connects your model to your view, and your view merely presents the data to the client in a readable format.

Despite its name, ASP.NET MVC does not truly follow the MVC pattern. You could call it Microsoft's take on MVC. The controller and views track pretty closely (though there is some very noticeable and repugnant bleed-over, such as ViewBag). But, the "model" bit is very unclearly defined. Since, Entity Framework is integrated, most latch on to the entity and call this the model, but entities are really bad models. They're just (or at least should just be) a programmatic representation of a database table: a way for Entity Framework to take data from your table rows and put it into some structure that lets you get at it easily.

If you look at other MVC implementations such as Ruby on Rails or Django, their "model" is more of a database-backed factory. Instead of the class simply holding data returned from the database, it is itself the gateway to the database for that type. It can create itself, update itself, query itself and its colleagues, etc. This allows you to add much more robust business logic to the class than you can or should with an "entity" in C#. Because of that, the closest you can get a true MVC model is your domain or service layer, which isn't really factored in at all by default in ASP.NET MVC.

That said, though, if you're implementing a repository / unit of work pattern with Entity Framework, you're probably making a mistake. Entity Framework already does this so you don't have to. The DbContext is your Unit of Work and each DbSet is a repository. Any repository you create, dimes to dollars, will simply end up proxying your repository methods to methods on your DbSet, which is your first sign that something's not right. Now, that's not to say that a certain amount of abstraction isn't still a good idea, but go with something like a service pattern instead: something lightweight and flexible that will truly abstract logic instead of just creating a matryoshka doll of code that will only serve to make your application harder to maintain.

Finally, your view model (which is actually a rip from the MVVM pattern) should simply be whatever your view needs it to be. If your view needs a drop down list, then your view model should contain that. Whether your view model should generate it, is a slight different question that depends on the complexity of the data involved. I don't think your view model should know how to query a database, so if you need to pull the data from a database then you should let the controller handle that and just feed it to the view model. But, if it's something like a list of months, a enum structure, a numerically static list, etc., it might be appropriate for the view model to have the logic to construct that list.

UPDATE

No, they are actually implementing a repository. I'm not sure why in the world the introductory MVC articles on MSDN advocate this, but as one who fell into the same trap early on, I can say from personal experience, and many other long-time MVC developers will tell you the same, you don't want to actually follow this advice. Like I said, most of your repository methods end up just proxying to Entity Framework methods, and you end up having to add a ton of boilerplate code for each new entity. And, the further you go down the rabbit hole, the harder it is to recover, leading inevitably to some major refactoring once you finally grow tired of the repetitive code.

A service pattern is a lot simpler. There may still be some proxying for things like updates and deletes, where there's very little unique from one entity to another, but the real difference will be seen with selects. With a repository, you'd do something like the following in your controller:

repo.Posts.Where(m => m.BlogId = blog.Id && m.PublishDate <= DateTime.Now && m.Status == PostStatus.Published).OrderByDescending(o => o.PublishDate).Take(10).ToList();

While with a service you would do:

service.Posts.GetPublishedPostsForBlog(blog, limit: 10);

And all that logic about what is a "published" post, how blog is connected to post, etc., goes into your service method instead of your controller. The other big difference is that service methods should return fully-baked data, i.e. a list type rather than a queryable. The goal with a service is to return exactly what you need, while the goal with a repository is to provide an endpoint to query into.