I have a nested route in rails, and I need to change the name of the :id, I don't want that :id because I haven an other field to use as parameter... I've been googling around but couldn't find a way of doing this... Any idea?
I have:
resources :user do
resources :elements, :only=>[:create,:destroy]
end
and a rake routes generates:
user_elements POST /users/:user_id/elements(.:format) elements#create
user_elements DELETE /users/:user_id/elements/:id(.:format) elements#destroy
And I need something like
user_elements POST /users/:user_id/elements(.:format) elements#create
user_elements DELETE /users/:user_id/elements/:CHANGED(.:format) elements#destroy
Thanks!!
I would recommend against changing the convention. You will probably need to declare the routes manually.
That said, something like this would probably work:
resources :users do
post 'elements(.:format)' => 'elements#create'
delete 'elements/:changed(.:format)' => 'elements#destroy'
end
match "/users/:user_id/elements/:CHANGED(.:format)" => 'elements#destroy'
This can do it!
Related
Ive been trying to create a simple route on rails, following this instructions
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html
my problem is that when I want to enter to my method I get a weird error.
I have a controler user and on my routes I wrote something like this
resources :users do
match "/custom/" => "user#custom"
end
So, at my controller I add this code
def custom
#user = User.find(params[:user_id])
end
but when I try to enter doing localhost:3000/users/1/custom I get an error like
uninitialized constant UserController
doing rake routes I can see
user_custom /users/:user_id/custom(.:format) user#custom
Any idea how to solve this problem?
I want this route to submit a form... is it possible to use this route (if i make it run) for use ajax? I want to submit a form.
Thanks
Change your route to:
resources :users do
match "/custom/" => "users#custom"
end
You should avoid the use of match though, since it will be deprecated in Rails 4. Try this instead
resources :users do
get :custom, on: :member
end
get is the verb, :custom the route and on: :member means that you are looking for a /users/:id/custom route instead of a /users/custom one. If you are looking for the latter, do this:
resources :users do
get :custom, on: :collection
end
Another way to do it is like this, which I prefer:
resources :users do
get 'custom', on: :collection
end
That gives you a route of /users/custom. If you were do use on: :member, then it would give you a route of /users/:id/custom.
You can also use a block for defining multiple custom actions for collections or members.
For example:
resources :users do
collection do
get 'custom'
post 'some_other_method'
end
member do
get 'some_action'
end
end
Maybe I'm stupid but Rails provides this nifty syntax for generating URL's like so:
url_for([user, comment]) # => /users/1/comment/1
Passing :edit allows me to create something like this:
url_for([:edit, user, comment]) # => /users/1/comment/1/edit
but is there some way to do following?
url_for([:new, user, comments]) # => NoMethodError: undefined method `new_user_comments_url'
UPDATE: Added more information.
My routes.rb:
resources :users do
resources :comments
end
resources :posts do
resources :comments
end
My problem here is, that I can't use Rails auto-generated url helper (user_comments_url), because I'm sharing the views for both user comments and post comments.
There are two workarounds (but no one feels like the "Rails"-way) for my problem:
Adding logic to the view, e.g. some if conditions.
Defining my own url helpers like new_parent_comment(user_or_blog).
Ok, found a solution, but I'm not sure if this is the intended one:
url_for([:new, user, :comment]) # => '/users/1/comments/new'
url_for([:new, post, :comment]) # => '/posts/1/comments/new'
Stuck with the same problem, and found next solution (tested on Rails 5.2):
url_for([user, Comment, action: :new])
where Comment model class name.
By the way, action also could be :edit.
According to the Rails Docs url_for uses the class name of the object passed to generate the RESTful route. It also states that with nested routes it can not make this assumption correctly:
If you have a nested route, such as admin_workshop_path you’ll have to call that explicitly (it’s impossible for url_for to guess that route).
I would suggest using a named route here something like new_user_comment_path(). I am assuming you have set up your routes.rb something like:
resources :users do
resources :comments do
end
end
Additionally you can run rake routes to print out the proper names for all your routes.
Hope this helps,
/Salernost
Could this simply be a typo? I think the last line should read comment, not comments:
url_for([:new, user, comment])
(Assuming your comment variable has been defined.)
I'm upgrading my app to rails 3, and I am a bit confused about some of the routes. The resourceful ones are easy enough, but how can I set a generic rule for all actions in a specific controller. I tried something like this:
get 'custom/:action/' => {:controller => :custom}
But that didn't work. It seems the new format is "controller#action", but how can I specify the action to be variable?
Also, other than using named routes or resources, is it possible to do shorthand notation to name routes in a specific controller?
i.e. rather than:
get '/tasks', :controller => :home, :action => :tasks, :as => 'tasks_home'
get '/accounts', :controller => :home, :action => :accounts, :as => 'accounts_home'
is it possible to do something a little cleaner, like:
controller => :home do
get :tasks
get :accounts
end
And that would automatically created the named routes?
You can use action as a variable like this:
resource :custom do
match ':action'
end
This will generate
/custom/:action(.:format) customs#:action
custom POST /custom(.:format) customs#create
new_custom GET /custom/new(.:format) customs#new
edit_custom GET /custom/edit(.:format) customs#edit
GET /custom(.:format) customs#show
PUT /custom(.:format) customs#update
DELETE /custom(.:format) customs#destroy
So it will handle your action as a variable URL-s and will add some default CRUD actions as well.
Note that the controller name here is in plural. If you would like to use a route for a controller which name is in singular, use resources instead of resource.
The answer to the second question is almost identical to the first one, use resource:
resource :home do
get :tasks
get :accounts
end
generates:
tasks_home GET /home/tasks(.:format) homes#tasks
accounts_home GET /home/accounts(.:format) homes#accounts
home POST /home(.:format) homes#create
new_home GET /home/new(.:format) homes#new
edit_home GET /home/edit(.:format) homes#edit
GET /home(.:format) homes#show
PUT /home(.:format) homes#update
DELETE /home(.:format) homes#destroy
Note that the matched controller names are in plural again, because of the convention.
Looks like this is related to the persisted field being set to false on nested ActiveResource objects: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/3107
resources :leagues do
resources :schedule
end
This generates:
leagues/:id
leagues/:league_id/schedule/:id
How can I keep the league ID from changing param names?
So it'll be:
leagues/:id
leagues/:id/schedule/:schedule_id
No, please do not do this.
The reason for it being this way is that it provides a common interface for nested resources across every single application. By making it different in your application, you're effectively going "against the grain" of Rails. Rails has a strict set of conventions that you should stick to. When you stray from this path, things get messy.
However, if you do want to shoot yourself in the foot, metaphorically speaking, you will need to define the routes manually. Here's the routes for the seven standard actions in a controller:
get 'leagues/:id/schedules', :to => "schedules#index", :as => "league_schedules"
get 'leagues/:id/schedule/:schedule_id', :to => "schedules#show", :as => "league_schedule"
get 'leagues/:id/schedules/new', :to => "schedules#new", :as => "new_league_schedule"
post 'leagues/:id/schedules', :to => "schedules#create"
get 'leagues/:id/schedule/:schedule_id/edit', :to => "schedules#edit", :as => "ed it_league_schedule"
put 'leagues/:id/schedule/:schedule_id', :to => "schedules#update"
delete 'leagues/:id/schedule/:schedule_id', :to => "schedules#destroy"
As you can see, it's quite ugly. But, if you really really really want to do it this way, that's how you'd do it.
You can set "param" option on resource route to override the default "id" param:
resources :leagues do
resources :schedule, param: schedule_id
end
refs to the Rails Routing Doc: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#overriding-named-route-parameters
It appends the ID to the nested_param which is a bummer because I would like mine to be without the singular name. It looks like they really don't want you to make it only like :id as it could have conflicts. Plus it would be a bit of a diff from the normal restful routing that rails likes to use.
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/5368f2508651c92fbae40cd679afbafdd7e98e77/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/routing/mapper.rb#L1207
namespace :account, defaults: { type: 'account' }do
resources :auth, param: :lies_id, only: [] do
get :google
end
end
Rake routes returns the following
$ rake routes | grep /account/auth
account_auth_google GET /account/auth/:auth_lies_id/google(.:format)
So the solution which seams simpler is to just change the controller to use the nested param name it creates.
What I am trying to achieve is something similar to Github's way for routes. E.g. I have a project with the name 'question' results in the URL /hjuskewycz/question. So my goal is to have routes where the first segment is the username and the second the project's name.
I tried a couple of different approaches, this is the one I am stuck with right now:
scope ":username" do
resources :projects, :path => "" do
resources :pictures
end
end
Using
project_path :username => project.owner.username, :id => project.to_param
works as expected. However, it's tedious to always specify the username although it's always the owner's username. I would very much prefer
project_path(:id => project.to_param)
I know about default_url_options and url_for and I digged in the code. However, polymorphic_url doesn't use default_url_options.
I tried in routes.rb:
resources :projects, :path => "", :defaults => {:username => Proc.new { "just_testing" }}
since you can use a proc for constrains, but haven't got it working either.
I tried in project.rb
def to_param
"#{owner.username"/#{project.title}"
end
I spent already too much time on this problem and my current approach uses a convenience method to add the :username parameter. Nevertheless, I think using this method all over the place just to add an entry stinks (bad code smell). I wonder if there is a more elegant solution to this problem.
I think you should not make things complicated here, just use something like this:
In Routes.rb
match ':username/:projectname/' => 'projects#show_project' , :as => :show_project
and in project_controller, just define this
def show_project
#user =User.find_by_username(params[:username])
#project =Project.find_by_slug(params[:projectname])
end
Simpler is better, it saves time and easy to understand for others
You want to do something like this in your controller:
before_filter :set_username
def set_username
Rails.application.routes.default_url_options[:username] = #user.name
end