In Razor, the model Master Page is not used. What exists are files Layout, used by View to build. Unlike Master Pages, where content sections were specified using a set of own tags, Razor uses pure HTML, processing notations and returning more HTML. The approach is simpler and less prone to server errors.Usually the Layout file of the main view (i.e., the one that opens in a computer browser) is within Views\Shared with the name _Layout.cshtmlBut nothing prevents him from changing that name. In this directory other Layout files common to the system must be placed. Layouts owning certain Views belonging to a Controller can stay in the specific directory of these Views.O Wizard that you executed only generates one View with the following statement, which is fully optional:@{ Layout = "~/Views/Caminho/Da/Minha/View/_Layout.cshtml"; } This statement is also found in the Special View _ViewStart.cshtml, which starts a default Layout if no Layout is specified:@{ Layout = "~/Views/Shared/_Layout.cshtml"; }

The field in question is returning DbNull and you try to convert it to whole.Check before a conversion:public static Usuario Mapear(DataRow registro) { var usuario = new Usuario(); usuario.Nome = Convert.ToString(registro["NOME"]); if (registro["STATUS"] != DBNull.Value) usuario.Status = (Status)Convert.ToInt32(registro["STATUS"]); else usuario.Status = Status.status2; //se vier null, faça algo return usuario; } https://dotnetfiddle.net/pGUQd5

in your vc controller just need to put route:public class HomeController : Controller { [Route("")] [Route("Home")] [Route("Home/Index-EXEMPLO")] public IActionResult Index() { return View(); } [Route("Home/About-EXEMPLO")] public IActionResult About() { return View(); } [Route("Home/Contact-EXEMPLO")] public IActionResult Contact() { return View(); } } if you still have doubts on the Microsoft website explains this: https://docs.microsoft.com/pt-br/aspnet/core/mvc/controllers/routing?view=aspnetcore-2.1

In a basic MVC project you can do the following:public class HomeController : Controller { public ActionResult Index() { var e = this.RouteData.Values; string controllerName = (string)e["controller"]; string actionName = (string)e["action"]; return View(); } } If you want to take these values generically (especially in the filters), you can access RouteData behind the OnActionExecuting method (there are others that come from this as well): protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) { var routeData = filterContext.RouteData; // aqui também base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext); } Complement: Collecting data through an extensionCreate a class within the ~/Extensions/ folder with the name LocationHelper. c)using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; using System.Web.Mvc; namespace WebTest.Extensions { /// <summary> /// Dados sobre a localização obtido da rota atual /// </summary> public class LocationData { public string ActionName { get; set; } public string ControllerName { get; set; } } public static class LocationHelper { public static LocationData GetLocationData&lt;TModel&gt;(this WebViewPage&lt;TModel&gt; page) { // TODO: validate page, ViewContext, RouteData, Values // for: // not null, contain values return new LocationData() { ActionName = (string)page.ViewContext.RouteData.Values["action"], ControllerName = (string)page.ViewContext.RouteData.Values["controller"] // TODO: get area name }; } } } reference it in View and use the static method as below:@using WebTest.Extensions <div> <label>Action Name: </label> <output>@this.GetLocationData().ActionName</output> </div> <div> <label>Controller Name: </label> <output>@this.GetLocationData().ControllerName</output> </div> After this run the page, observe the results:There are some things to do:Validations in this extension, such as null values and also add the return of the Area.Extra points:I didn't make this example as a real ASP.NET Mvc 'Helper'... to create them you need to add the ASP.NET folder called App_Code (can do this in the project context menu) and after that with the right button in this folder you can add a Helper (it creates a base code for you), the way to use is absolutely the same, the difference is that this helper is more aimed at Razor syntax.

ItaSouza,In this part of the code <p>model.PessoaId</p> To access your model, you would need to do as follows:<p>@Model.PessoaId</p> This is because by placing an element without "@" within an HTML tag, Razor will interpret this as an HTML code, not a C# code. If the View name is index, as you indicated, it is necessary that it has the same name as your Action, in the case, Index, inside the Home folder. However, if the raised exception is in View, then you are successfully accessing the page.As also indicated by Leandro, the directive that indicates what the ViewModel of your view should always be minuscula, while in order to access the Model attribute of your view, this should always be capitalized.

You can use one https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/object-and-collection-initializers?WT.mc_id=DOP-MVP-5002397 :var pessoa = new Pessoa { PessoaId = 1, Nome = "teste teste", twitter = "@teste" }; Or create a https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/constructors?WT.mc_id=DOP-MVP-5002397 for your class:public class Pessoa { public Pessoa(int pessoaId, string nome, string twitter) { this.PessoaId = pessoaId; this.Nome = nome; this.twitter = twitter; } public int PessoaId { get; set; } public string Nome { get; set; } public string twitter { get; set; } } With the builder you can create the instance the way you were using.I could call it that:var pessoa = new Pessoa ( pessoaId = 1, nome = "teste teste", twitter = "@teste" ); Or even so:var pessoa = new Pessoa(1, "teste teste", "@teste"); A functional example:public class Program { public static void Main() { var joao = new Pessoa(1, "João da Silva", "@joao"); var jose = new Pessoa( pessoaId : 1, nome : "José da Silva", twitter : "@jose" ); var joaquim = new Pessoa() { PessoaId = 1, Nome = "Joaquim da Silva", Twitter = "@joaquim" }; } } public class Pessoa { public Pessoa() {} //normalmente isto não é recomendado, fiz só para criar o terceiro exemplo public Pessoa(int pessoaId, string nome, string twitter) { PessoaId = pessoaId; Nome = nome; Twitter = twitter; } public int PessoaId { get; set; } public string Nome { get; set; } public string Twitter { get; set; } } See https://ideone.com/h3u8Su . And https://dotnetfiddle.net/tGkLRm . Also https://github.com/bigown/SOpt/blob/master/CSharp/Syntax/ObjectInitialization.cs .

Well, James, from what I understood your biggest problem is the job of turning Model into DTO, then DTO into ViewModel, ViewModel into DTO, then DTO into Model. With AutoMapper, part of the work would be done and you would have less problems, but before simply using a type solution, you can rethink your model as a whole. There are several design standards to meet your similar needs, logically no standard is perfect. First I think you should think which points are most relevant to you: development speed, decoupling, maintainability and etc.There is no perfect pattern when we define an architecture, we always have to give up some things to achieve others, there is no efficient maintenance without testing, decoupling without separation of layers and responsibilities, etc.Why use DTO (Data Transfer Object)? As the name itself says, data transfer object, when you have a system where you need to hold several queries and bring complete entities into separate queries becomes a problem, it is time to use a DTO.From what I said it is seeing how a problem repeats this code of transforming an object into another, it is against using the pattern on uncomplex screens, a simple example:User Creation Screen:DTO:public Guid Id {get;set;} public string Nome {get;set;} public string Cpf {get;set;} public string Telefone {get;set;} public string Email {get;set;} public string Senha {get;set;} ENTITY:public Guid Id {get;set;} public string Nome {get;set;} public string Cpf {get;set;} public string Telefone {get;set;} public string Email {get;set;} public string Senha {get;set;} On your screen you will have to perform validations, your ViewModel cannot equal your DTO, you need the user to confirm the E-mail and Confirm Password, you may need to send several other information to your screen.Now imagine if tomorrow you realize that it is better to separate Entity User in Physical Person and CredentialFor whatever reason. Your DTO traffics the data from the two entities between the layers, continues using a single screen, does not need to change your application, only your data access layer.With some tools like I quoted AutoMapper you can make your work of transforming an entity similar to another easy one, with only one line of code, and you can take advantage of the advantages of this pattern.What you need to preach always is the separation of responsibilities and simplicity, not always less code is the simplest, not always the most complex is the best, ponder your needs. Basically: Use AutoMapper to convert an object to another with the same properties. Leave your business rule in your domain and let your repository just be your link link with your database. In the rest try to evaluate what to do in each layer, and let each one do what is your responsibility.

You need to save the change in Model, as below:[HttpPost] public ActionResult Adicionar(usuario usuario, HttpPostedFileBase foto) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { db.usuario.Add(usuario); db.SaveChanges(); var fotoperfil = Path.GetFileName(foto.FileName); var caminho = Path.Combine(Server.MapPath("~/App_Data/Foto"), fotoperfil); foto.SaveAs(caminho); usuario.ArquivoDaFoto = caminho; return RedirectToAction("Index"); } return View(usuario); } ArquivoDaFoto must be String.

To those who might be interested, I found what I needed, I decided as follows:I created a conditional validator that tests a specific class attribute and handles the other class attribute, so:public class Classe1 : IValidatableObject { [Key] public int Id_Classe1 { get; set; } [Required] public int Id_Estado { get; set; } [Required] public virtual Classe2 CLASSE2 { get; set; } [IgualOuDiferente("Id_Estado", "1", "Igual", ErrorMessage = "Campo requerido")] public string Teste { get { return this.CLASSE2.Nm_Classe2; } set { CLASSE2.Nm_Classe2 = value; } } } That is, if the attribute "Id_Estado" is "Equal" to "1", it requires that you inform the Nm_Classe2, even this being in another class (Classe2) without [Required].In View it is like this:@Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Teste) @Html.ValidationMessageFor(m => m.Teste) Valew!

There are three Web.config configuration:Web.config - It is used in any situation of Configuration Manager (Debug/Release) while you are running your application directly through Visual Studio.Web. Debug.config - It is used for publication when Configuration Manager is in DebugWeb. Release. config - It is used for publication when Configuration Manager is in ReleaseTherefore you can achieve three situations where your variables can be changed, I particularly find this advantageous in situations that deal with local addresses, the Web.config configuration points to a physical location on my machine (e.g. C:/Test/), and the others point to the respective virtual addresses of IIS (e.g. /Debug/Archives/ for Debug and /Release/Archives/ for Release).

I'd use another solution.Motive: Assembling HTML is the responsibility of View. The Controller must process requests and perform logic (to recover information, change the database, etc...).Following this idea I would not feel well riding HTML in the Controller, I do not know if the implementation and maintenance of this would be legal, even because I did not use this kind of solution you chose. Disadvantage of using this model: One of the premises of Asp.net Mvc is the clear separation between your business logic from your UI code, however, depending on your implementation, you can end up mixing your business logic with the HTML you are generating in the Controller, walking a little against that idea.Normally when it is necessary to load many records in View use one https://pt.stackoverflow.com/questions/23694/pagina%C3%A7%C3%A3o-mvc-asp-net so you don't need to load all the data.Already if I couldn't use pagination, would review/refactor/rethink the code. An alternative would create a http://www.devmedia.com.br/html-helpers-criando-componentes-web-customizados-em-asp-net-mvc/27703 to mount this table for example, but would not mount HTML in Controller.

It's complicating. Never validation can be different because of client change.In fact, cleaning the ModelState is a bad practice in almost every case.Implement your Class2 as follows:public class Class2 : IValidatableObject { [Key] public int Class2Id { get; set; } [Required] public int TipoCadastro { get; set; } public virtual Classe1 Classe1 { get; set; } public IEnumerable&lt;ValidationResult&gt; Validate(ValidationContext validationContext) { if (TipoCadastro == 1) { // Coloque a validação aqui. Dando erro, retorne um ValidationResult. yield return new ValidationResult("Campos tal e tal são obrigatórios."); } } } To indicate a given field, add a array of Strings to the end, indicating to which fields the message covers:yield return new ValidationResult("Campo Nome é obrigatório.", new string[] { "Nome" });

If the user asks ID 5, stay http://site/Registro/Detalhar/5 , if he exchanges ID to 10 before doing POST, I saw that the controller understands that ID is 5.Yes, it remains 5 because the value passed on the route is used in the Model that is loaded before the HTML, which in turn is populated in the HiddenFor.However, is there any way to break the number and try to switch from 5 to 10, and the controller receives 10?Changing the value on the URL route no, you would have to reload the page so that the new Entity ID is loaded on HidderFor. But it is possible to circumvent this by simulating an AJAX/POST script and sending any values to your application. One of the ways to block this type of shipment is by properly configuring Cross Domain Requests. There are a number of security settings that you can apply. Take a look here http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/cda5ba/security-feature-in-mvc/ .

I usually use the patern Watch.Observer is a Design Pattern that represents a 1-N ratio (from one to many) between objects. So when an object changes status, dependent objects will be notified/informed and updated automatically. This pattern allows objects to be warned of the state change of other events occurring in another object.Observer is also called Publisher-Subscriber, Event Generator and Dependents.The components of this patern are:SubjectYou know the Observers. Any number of objects Observer can observe an Subject.Provides interfaces to attach and detach objects Observer.ConcreteSubjectStores state of interest to ConcreteObserver.Send the notification to observers when the status changes.WatchDefines an update interface for objects that must be notified of changes in an Subject.ConcreteObserverMaintains a reference to a ConcreteSubject object.Stores the state that should be consistent with Subject.Implement the interface Watch updating to keep the state consistent with Subject. http://csharpbrasil.com.br/observer/

In a well structured project the layer responsible for accessing data stay in Infra. Data. You can use the http://dddcommunity.org/ to create an application by following a software modeling approach.See the full example of the DDD model http://www.eduardopires.net.br/2014/10/tutorial-asp-net-mvc-5-ddd-ef-automapper-ioc-dicas-e-truques/ .

Your modeling is incorrect. The way it is done, the ModelBinder (class converting the values of View in the parameter passed to the Controller) cannot make the association correctly, because Estado is a complex entity, and what is being put on screen is only the Id of Estado, which is a simpler entity. In the case, integer.Modify your Model for the following:public class Cidade { [Key] public int ID { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Campo Estado é obrigatório!")] public int EstadoID { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Campo Nome é obrigatório!")] public String Nome { get; set; } public virtual Estado Estado { get; set; } } It may seem like a concht EstadoID and the object virtual Estado separately, but in fact this is how Entity Framework and MVC work. Imagine you don't want to use the information Estado, that is, carry it minimally. The only information required for this is the Id of Estado. The builders are not really necessary pro that you need to do. Using the object initializer that @DiegoZanardo placed in his answer, you can already initialize any object. Finally, in View, modify the following: <div> @Html.Label("País") @Html.DropDownList("pais", (SelectList)ViewData["paises"], "Selecione", new { id = "PaisID"}) </div> <div> @Html.Label("EstadoID") @Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.EstadoID, Enumerable.Empty<SelectListItem>(), "Selecione") </div> This will make the correlation between the whole variable of Model and DropDownList.

I believe you should do GET through the link: pagina/ListageDecricao? IDDescricade=1&Data=01/01/2014&Data2=02/01/2014And in your action of generating the report you put the other parameters also:public ActionResult ListagemDescricao(int IDDescricao, DateTime data, DateTime data2){ LocalReport relatorio = new LocalReport(); relatorio.ReportPath = Server.MapPath("~/Relatorios/RelatorioDatainicioDatafim.rdl"); var query = db.OrdemServicos.Where(o =&gt; o.IDDescricao == IDDescricao).ToList(); relatorio.DataSources.Add(new ReportDataSource("DataSet1", ToDataTable(query))); relatorio.SetParameters(new ReportParameter("Data", data.ToShortDateString())); relatorio.SetParameters(new ReportParameter("Data2", data.ToShortDateString())); //Continuar... }

In ASP. NET MVC, Scripts should not be placed in Partial Views by the simple fact that Partial Views can be reused in various parts of their code, causing a strange behavior of the Scripts.The right thing is to put your scripts on @session scripts of your Index.cshtml:@section scripts { <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { $.get("@Url.Action("_Grid", "Data")", function (data) { $('#con').replaceWith(data); }); }); </script> } In View Shared/_Layout.cshtml, you must have the following statement:@RenderSection("scripts", required: false) It is in it that content will be rendered @section scripts.

I found the solution! I added StringFormat, TextBoxFor:<div class="campo"> @Html.LabelFor(model => model.ValorPadrao) <br /> @Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.ValorPadrao, "{0:F2}", new { style = "width:400px", @class="maskMoeda" }) </div> And I added those two notes on Model:[DisplayFormat(DataFormatString = "{0:0,0.00}", ApplyFormatInEditMode = true)] [DataType(DataType.Currency)] public decimal? ValorUnitario { get; set; }

I've had that problem, but I didn't use it. remote validation. In my case, it occurred when receiving the object the ID was equal to zero. Thus, the persistence framework I was using understood that it was a new object to be registered.Make sure that in your Action the registered user ID is being received.If you are not, render that ID in View (in a hidden input for example) so that it can be sent in the post to your Action.If this is not the situation, edit the question by adding your Controller code to try to help you.