Skip to main content

Suspending & resuming property notifications when using INotifyPropertyChanged

Currently I'm working with some UI code which has a 'domino effect' when a property changes on a view model - the data is being rendered in a tree view, and the reason for the 'domino effect' is because the value of a node in the tree view is an aggregation of multiple child nodes (leaf nodes hold the actual values which are aggregated up). The dataset is dynamic, it can be updated during it's visualization and when this happens we want the ability suspend NPC events being fired until recalculating all the aggregates has completed.

I have the following base class for all bind-able (view model) classes:
What I wanted was the ability to prevent suspend the firing of the PropertyChanged event and then resume later, I wanted to do this via a single new method exposed on this class and the return type would IDisposable and importantly it should reference count when called multiple times without being disposed. I wanted the ability to do something similar to the following test - where I can have nested calls to suspend but it will only resume when the underlying reference count returns to zero:
Loading ....
The User class is shown below:
Loading ....
I wanted minimal changes to the Bindable class - I wanted to avoid increasing the memory foot print of class as much as possible as well as only adding a single public method to the class. Ideally I wanted the Bindable class to have no knowledge directly of the reference counting going on when nested calls to SuspendNotifications method are made.

I came up with the following changes to the Bindable class:
As you can see the only change to the public signature is the addition of the SuspendNotifications method and the internal structure now has a reference to a disposable instance. The RaisePropertyChanged method has been modified to check whether notification have been suspended - if they have then it is added to the instance of the SuspendedNotification class:
Loading ....
The SuspendNotifications method is defined as follows, as you can see there isn't much to the method, you're probably wondering - 'when does the created instance of SuspendedNotifcations get disposed?'
Loading ....
The answer is when the internal reference counter of the SuspendedNotifications class returns to zero.

Looking at the method above what you notice is the returned IDisposable is not the instance of the SuspendedNotification class but the one returned by the call to the AddRef method. Every time the IDisposable returned by the AddRef method is disposed the reference count on the instance of SuspendedNotifications is decremented, once this returns to zero the property changed events are fired for all the properties which have changed whilst notifications have been suspended.

This is all achieved by the parameter passed to the SuspendedNotifications class - basically I've inverted the responsibility for when the SuspendedNotifications instance is disposed, the instance disposes of it's self when the reference count returns to zero. This can be seen in the SuspendedNotifiication class below:
Loading ....
And this produces a successful test output:


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub  to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called:  I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely  from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th