ansaurus

Question

How to render partial view in asp.net mvc 2 using Controller and Action ?

Answer 1

A:

RenderAction is in MVC2 (docs here). It sounds like you've changed your code to use RenderPartial instead which is completely different. Change it back to use RenderAction and you should be ok. If you don't have it in your version, perhaps you need to update to the latest beta?

tvanfosson 2010-03-09 12:48:42

Hi tvanfosson, thanks for your reply.I tried RenderAction earlier, it throws an exception like "no sutable route found in rotes table". It doesnt seem reasonable to add any additional rotes, beacuse i'm not acually using route: Controller and View are invoked Direclty, right?Thanks, Ilya.

portland 2010-03-09 14:02:53

There is a signature for RenderAction that takes the action and controller, in that order. Your code looks correct -- do you have the latest MVC2 beta? Is it possible that you have a conflict with the MVCContrib lib -- you should remove it from your project, I would think.

tvanfosson 2010-03-09 14:13:00

I have no references to MVCContlib. I'm also sure to have the latest vertion of MVC, which is included in MS VS 2010 RC Ultimate. Additional information will be provided in few hours. Thanks for such a quick replies, tvanfosson.

portland 2010-03-09 14:43:46

I've checked: <% Html.RenderAction("Menu", "Nav" as string); %>throws an exception No route in the route table matches the supplied values.VS 2010 RC, no mvcContlib used.

portland 2010-03-09 17:32:17

Answer 2

+1 A:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2408961/how-to-render-partial-view-in-asp-net-mvc-2-using-controller-and-action

I found the problem. I always remove {controller}/{action} route and customize all my routes with lowercase REST like URLs. But for Html.RenderAction it is necessary to have such general route. I added that general route to the end of my routes list and it worked. – Mahdi Feb 22 at 14:42

Although i still don't understand, how EXACTLY this works, why is suck route nessesary, and what are route's constraints. Maybe i will do some research later.

portland 2010-03-09 17:44:07

It is because RenderAction is much closer to what happens when a controller action is initially mapped via routing. I do agree it would be nice if one could not expose the route but still have RenderAction work. In the meantime, you can expose only that specific route, put [ChildActionOnly] on the actions and you'll not have the default routing in place. As you hinted at, with route constraints, you can lessen the impact the presence of the route may have on your available "routing namespace" (not an issue in most cases but an important consideration with sites that are partially CMS).

Cymen 2010-03-26 18:06:56

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

How to render partial view in asp.net mvc 2 using Controller and Action ?

related questions