Passing objects across controllers in Grails

[Mark Herschberg]

I'm trying to figure out who to pass an object during a webflow. Specifically I want to pass the User object to the class Foo. After the User object is created, I redirect the flow to the FooController and I can pass the user ID using the call below.

redirect(controller:'Foo',action:'create',id:user.id);

I then look up the User using

User.get(params["id"])

Is this the right way to do it, or is there some way to pass the User object itself?

--Mark
[ March 13, 2008: Message edited by: Mark Herschberg ]

[Mark Herschberg]

I figured out the answer.

I can pass parameters through the params tag (when I remember to include the ":" in params:["myparam":"myavlue"]). However, I think the values are all treated as Strings. In that sense I can pass the id or some unique value (e.g. the username field since typically username will be constrained to be unique for all User instance).

However, doing a lookup on both sides is wrong. Rather, I want to pass the actual User object itself. To do that I user the model tag, which works just like params but can pass objects. However, this must be done not using a redirect but rather a chain.

--Mark

[Mark Herschberg]

I almost figured out the answer....

Yes, this does pass an object. However, at the end of the create method in the fooController I have

return ['foo':foo]

However I have a User object I've been able to pass into the create method using the model in chain. I now need that User object passed to save method where I can attach it to the Foo object. I'm not sure how to pass an object at this step.

--Mark

[Marc Peabody]

In your final save method, check to see if your User was automagically set to your Foo model that create returned.

I know it sounds silly, but I believe that's how she works.

[Mark Herschberg]

I checked, it didn't happen. Below is the code from UserInformationController. I create a class User and then have a second class UserInformation which contains additional information about a user. The automatically generated statements don't end in a ";" whereas the lines I added do.

    def create = {
        println "\n\n in UserInformationController create";
        def userInformation = new UserInformation()
        userInformation.properties = params
        def user = chainModel["user"];
        println "user = " + user;
        userInformation.setUser(user);
        println "userInformation = " + userInformation;
        return ['userInformation':userInformation]
    }
 
    def save = {
        println "\n\n in UserInformationController save";
        println "params = " + params;
        def userInformation = new UserInformation(params)
        println "userInformation = " + userInformation;
        if(!userInformation.hasErrors() && userInformation.save()) {
            flash.message = "UserInformation ${userInformation.id} created"
            redirect(action:show,id:userInformation.id)
        }
        else {
            render(view:'create',model:[userInformation:userInformation])
        }
    }
 

This generates the following output...


in UserInformationController create
user = USER: bob
userInformation = USER INFORMATION: null null is linked to... USER: bob


in UserInformationController save
params = ["dob_day":"13", "lastName":"smith", "dob_year":"2008", "dob_month":"3", "email":"", "dob":"struct", "action":"save", "gender":"", "controller":"userInformation", "firstName":"bobby"]
userInformation = USER INFORMATION: bobby smith is linked to... null


So as you can see in each case I generate an instance of UserInformationController but in the latter I didn't have a User to give to it. I was able to pass one in to the create method using the chain, but dontt don't have to further pass it to save. I'm not quite sure who exactly called the create method and where the returned map wound up.

--Mark

[Marc Peabody]

Excerpt from Definitive Guide to Grails
I can't tell from this example/explanation whether or not your create method would have to call chain(..).

It doesn't sound like it's necessary to call setUser, as it says the model builds itself together automatically.

How about adding a println( "user in save: ${chainModel.userInformation.user}" )
to your save method?

[Mark Herschberg]

That's what I had thought to. I had replaced the return statement at the end of the create method with the following code:

chain(model:['userInformation':userInformation,'user':user]);

I get a org.codehaus.groovy.grails.web.servlet.mvc.exceptions.ControllerExecutionException: Action not found in redirect for name [null] This is why I was trying to figure out exactly when and where how create and save get called.

I've also tried it without calling the setUser() method, but then my userInformation instance has no reference to the user instance. It looks like I should be using add or addTo* but I can't seem to get either of those to work. In any case, that instance of userInformation goes away at the end goes away at the end of the create method.

--Mark

[Marc Peabody]

Here's a simple example that works. Maybe you can tell me what I'm doing that isn't what you're trying to accomplish.

Flow:
1) Select "UserController"
2) Select "New User" (UserController.create is scaffoldedly called)
3) Enter fields, select "Create" (calls UserController.save)
4) (UserController.save chains to UserInformation.create; create view is displayed, the User previously created is selected in dropdown)
5) Enter favorite color, select "Create" (calls UserInformation.save)

class User {
    String login
    String password
    String firstName
    String lastName
    String email
 
    static constraints = {
        login(unique:true,length:5..15)
        password(matches:/[\w\d]+/, length:6..12)
        email(email:true)
        firstName(blank:false)
        lastName(blank:false)
    }
 
    String toString(){"${firstName} ${lastName}"}
}
 
class UserInformation {
    User user
    String favoriteColor
 
    static constraints = {
        favoriteColor(blank:false)
    }
}
 
class UserController {
    def scaffold = User
 
    def save = {
        def u = new User(params)
        u.save()
        chain(controller:'userInformation',action:'create',model:[user:u])
    }
}
 
class UserInformationController {
    def scaffold = UserInformation
 
    def save = {
        def userInformation = new UserInformation(params)
        if(!userInformation.hasErrors() && userInformation.save()) {
            flash.message = "UserInformation ${userInformation.id} created"
            redirect(action:show,id:userInformation.id)
        } else {
            render(view:'create',model:[userInformation:userInformation])
        }
    }
    def create = {
        def userInformation = new UserInformation(params)
        userInformation.setUser(chainModel?.user)
        return ['userInformation':userInformation]
    }
}

[Mark Herschberg]

I haven't seen this explicitly documented, but from what I have come to understand, params passes only Strings whereas you need a model to pass objects. Because favoriteColor is a String, it does get passed through params. If you made it an object (and removed it from the view gsp), you should get the same error I do.

--Mark

[Marc Peabody]

If you remove its component from the view, you must replace the component with hidden fields.

So I removed my User dropdown from the UserInformation create page and replaced it with:

<g:hiddenField name="user.id" value="${userInformation?.user?.id}"/> 

and it still works.

[Mark Herschberg]

Why do you need a hidden field? Can't you just set it programmatically in the controller?

--Mark

[Marc Peabody]

Ok... use flash scope:

class UserInformationController {
    def scaffold = UserInformation
 
    def save = {        
        def userInformation = flash?.userInformation
        if(userInformation){
           userInformation.properties = params 
        }else{
            userInformation = new UserInformation(params)
        }
 
        if(!userInformation.hasErrors() && userInformation.save()) {
            flash.message = "UserInformation ${userInformation.id} created"
            flash.userInformation = userInformation
            redirect(action:show,id:userInformation.id)
        } else {
            render(view:'create',model:[userInformation:userInformation])
        }
    }
    def create = {
        def userInformation = new UserInformation(params)
        userInformation.setUser(chainModel?.user)
        flash.userInformation = userInformation
        return ['userInformation':userInformation]
    }
}

It requires a bit more dancing around but this works.

[Mark Herschberg]

Good idea; but...

I had also figured that I can always pass the username (which is unique) through params, and then recreate the User instance from a lookup. I nixed that because while it would work, it just seemed like it wasn't the right way to do it.

While flash would work, wouldn't I want to use one the other other more persistent flow states starting from the create method in the UserController (as opposed to UserInformation)? I'm not quite sure which one persists across two controllers.

(I don't want to sound ungrateful, I appreciate the effort, I just want to learn the right way to do it. :-)

--Mark

[Marc Peabody]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
While flash would work, wouldn't I want to use one the other other more persistent flow states starting from the create method in the UserController (as opposed to UserInformation)? I'm not quite sure which one persists across two controllers.

Flash scope just says "Make me available for one more request." Chaining actually uses flash scope under the covers.

You could put it in session scope (Controller Scopes), but then you have to worry about cleaning up after yourself (remove it from session at the right time). To me, session scope is a sloppy idea.

I'm used to the whole hidden field idea from other web frameworks, so I'd probably lean towards that solution.

[Mark Herschberg]

Can you explain the whole hidden field thing to me? Why do we need it? Is there a security risk if someone modified the HTML page? Is it even visible to the end user's browser?

--Mark

[Mark Herschberg]

So I was able to get this to work following your code but without the need for the hidden tag.

One interesting issue... I didn't originally implement Serializable in User or UserInformation. The documentation said I needed to, but I was going step-by-step to see where the boundaries and failure points would occur. Interestingly I was able to pass the User object through the chain without an issue. It was only when passing the UserInformation about through the flash scope that it didn't work. Unfortunately it did "work" in that it didn't cause any problems. The flash.userInformation was null, basically it fialed quietly; once I implemented Serializable it worked. I asked on the grails user's list if I should file a bug.

Thanks for all your help Marc, I really appreciate it. (Maybe as a thanks I'll name a son after you--but you know, spelled correctly with a "k". ;-)

--Mark

[Jim Yingst]

[Mark]: Thanks for all your help Marc, I really appreciate it. (Maybe as a thanks I'll name a son after you--but you know, spelled correctly with a "k". ;-)

Karc?
[ March 15, 2008: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Marc Peabody]

The hidden field isn't terribly secure. If it's an internal app it's probably not a huge deal. Anyone crazy enough to tweak the HTML (with Firebug or something) would be within choking distance.

If a hidden field were just some normal field you didn't want to be an input field, no big deal. But in the scenario here we're passing the identifier for a very critical entity object. Probably not the best idea to use the hidden field for this, so I take back what I said about my preference... unless I wasn't worried at all about my users being malicious.

I need to get on the Grails lists.

Please keep posting here, Mark. This is helping me learn.

Jim, I think he meant Mkrc. The pronunciation is similar to taking an uppercut punch to the throat.

[Mark Herschberg]

From the discussion on the grails, I'm thinking I should use a webflow, so I've posted a new question here.

As for the spelling of the name, it would be "sjdfkwhj" but all the letters are silent, so it's pronounced "Bob."

--Mark