Nested Routing for Single Table Inheritance model rails 3.1 - ruby-on-rails-3

I created a Single table inheritance model in my model file and am having difficulty with the routing. When I use :as in my resource, it renames my named path.
Model file:
class Account < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
class AdvertiserAccount < Account
end
class PublisherAccount < Account
end
Routes.rb
resources :advertiser_accounts, :as => "accounts" do
resources :campaigns
end
I used :as in my routes because it is a single table inheritance and I want to pass the account_id and not the advertiser_account_id. My link is http://127.0.0.1:3000/advertiser_accounts/1/campaigns
/advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns/:id(.:format)
However, using :as renames my named path from advertiser_account_campaigns to account_campaigns. My route looks like
account_campaigns GET /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns(.:format) campaigns#index
So when I create a new item using form_for, I would get "undefined method `advertiser_account_campaigns_path'"
Edited: current hacked solution
A hack around way that I am using is to duplicate the code in the routes file. Anyone have suggestions?
resources :advertiser_accounts, :as => "accounts" do
resources :campaigns
end
resources :advertiser_accounts do
resources :campaigns
end

If you run "rake routes" with your setup you'll see this:
account_campaigns GET /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns(.:format) campaigns#index
POST /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns(.:format) campaigns#create
new_account_campaign GET /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns/new(.:format) campaigns#new
edit_account_campaign GET /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns/:id/edit(.:format) campaigns#edit
account_campaign GET /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns/:id(.:format) campaigns#show
PUT /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns/:id(.:format) campaigns#update
DELETE /advertiser_accounts/:account_id/campaigns/:id(.:format) campaigns#destroy
accounts GET /advertiser_accounts(.:format) advertiser_accounts#index
POST /advertiser_accounts(.:format) advertiser_accounts#create
new_account GET /advertiser_accounts/new(.:format) advertiser_accounts#new
edit_account GET /advertiser_accounts/:id/edit(.:format) advertiser_accounts#edit
account GET /advertiser_accounts/:id(.:format) advertiser_accounts#show
PUT /advertiser_accounts/:id(.:format) advertiser_accounts#update
DELETE /advertiser_accounts/:id(.:format) advertiser_accounts#destroy
So you should use "account_campaingns_path" in this setup, the ":as" actually changes the calls in the code not the paths in the url. If you want to change the paths you should use ":path =>" rather than ":as =>".
The Rails guide on routing also shows some examples with ":as" and ":path" and the resulting paths and helpers, you'll need to search a bit because think they only use in in examples explaining other cases.
Edit: rereading your question, I think you may also want to look at member routes, I'm not sure if that's what you want to mean with it being a single inheritance and not wanting to pass the advertiser_account's ':account_id'?

Related

how can I make a simple route on rails and can I use it for an ajax form?

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

How do I create routes for a controller that does nothing with models in Rails?

Still pretty new to Rails, so if I'm taking the completely wrong approach, please feel free to straiten me out.
How do I make routes.rb aware that there's a root controller full of actions that don't manipulate models, while preserving the route helper methods? I'd like it to respond to requests like these:
http://localhost/download
http://localhost/share
With route helpers like
download_app_path
share_path
but without static named routes like these:
match '/download' => 'site#download', :as => :download_app
match '/share' => 'site#share', :as => :share
from a SiteController that doesn't create, show, or otherwise manipulates models from my app.
I've tried using an approach like this, but it works without generating the route helpers ( naturally )
match '/:action', :controller => 'site'
I could theoretically do without the route helpers, but I think they're a bit easier to read than passing hashes of url options to link_to or form methods.
Is there a way to accomplish a more resourceful root controller, or is what I'm trying to do unconventional for Rails?
Edit
For clarity, here's what this SiteController class looks like:
class SiteController < ApplicationController
def download
#custom_options = { .. }
end
def share
#custom_options = { .. }
end
def about
end
end
Its purpose is to allow me to collect pages that don't interact with resources ( such as Users or Friendships ) into a single controller and maintain them all in one place. I'm trying to set this controller up as the application root controller - so all paths from this controller will be directly off the app host ( myapp.com/download )
Thanks in advance!
routes and resources are not tied to models. it's just a RESTful convention. if you just want to use the index actions, in your example download and share could be done like
resouce :download, only: [:index]
resouce :share, only: [:index]
see all the examples in the guides http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html
if you want to add the download and share functionality to some "resource" like, say a picture, then you would do something like:
resources :pictures do
get 'download', :on => :member
get 'share', :on => :member
end
a resource always has and endpoint /pictures for example. so if you want to have paths directly to your host, then you need to provide custom matchers in your routes like you did in your examples.

Passing :new to Rails url_for

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.)

Questions about rails3 routes

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

Rails 3 - Nested resources and polymorphic paths: OK to two levels, but break at three

I'm trying to do a simple family reunion site with: "posts", "families", "kids", and "pictures". Ideally I'd like the routes/relationships to be structured this way:
resources :posts do
resources :pictures
end
resources :fams do
resources :pictures
resources :kids do
resources :pictures
end
end
In the models I have the necessary "belongs_to" and "has_many" relationships set between fams and kids. Fams, kids, and posts all are defined with "has_many :pictures, :as => :imageable" while pictures are defined as: belongs_to :imageable, :polymorphic => true
When trying to do link_to "Edit" and link_to "Destroy" in the pictures views I run into all sorts of _path problems. polymoric_path works fine at two levels, namely for posts-pictures and fams-pictures but it fails to handle the three level case of fams-kids-pictures. I'm guessing that it was not designed to handle the two levels of "imageable" objects above the picture object. Another issue is that in one instance the pictures controller has to handle a "one level" resource-nesting situation and in another it has to handle a "two levels" situation. Not sure how to approach this.
One thing I did try was to not nest resources more than one deep, per the Ruby Guides directions. I structured them like this:
resources :posts do
resources :pictures
end
resources :fams do
resources :pictures
resources :kids
end
resources :kids do
resources :pictures
end
This caused another set of problems with paths since the fam to kid relationship was no longer preserved. I also could not get polymorphic_path to function correctly accross all the different picture views.
So here is my main question: Does anyone know of a Rails 3 example/tutorial where nested resources, belongs-to/has_many, and polymorphic relationships are all put together, especially where it is not just the simple, two-level relationship that most examples show? (I'm fairly new to Rails and the Rails 2 examples I've found in these areas are confusing given my lack of Rails historical experience.)
Or can someone tell me how to structure the link_to EDIT and link_to DELETE statements for my picture views, as well as the redirect-to statement for my create, update, and destroy methods in my pictures controller?
Thanks!
Your code example that limited your nesting to 2 levels is quite near the answer. To avoid duplicate routes for fams->kids and kids, you can use the :only option with a blank array so that the 1st-level kids will not generate routes except in the context of kids->pictures, like so:
resources :posts do
resources :pictures
end
resources :fams do
resources :pictures
resources :kids
end
resources :kids, only: [] do # this will not generate kids routes
resources :pictures
end
For the above code, you can use the following to construct your polymorphic edit url:
polymorphic_url([fam, picture], action: :edit) # using Ruby 1.9 hash syntax
polymorphic_url([kid, picture], action: :edit)
Have been having this exact same problem for a while. I have it working now, but it isn't beautiful :S
From a nested monster like:
http://localhost:3000/destinations/3/accommodations/3/accommodation_facilities/52
Your params object ends up looking like this:
action: show
id: "52"
destination_id: "3"
accommodation_id: "3"
controller: accommodation_facilities
where "id" represents the current model id (last on the chain) and the other ones have model_name_id
To correctly render another nested link on this page, you need to pass in an array of objects that make up the full path, eg to link to a fictional FacilityType object you'd have to do:
<%= link_to "New", new_polymorphic_path([#destination, #accommodation, #accommodation_facility, :accommodation_facility_type]) %>
To generate this array from the params object, I use this code in application_helper.rb
def find_parent_models(current_model = nil)
parents = Array.new
params.each do |name, value|
if name =~ /(.+)_id$/
parents.push $1.classify.constantize.find(value)
end
end
parents.push current_model
parents
end
Then to automatically make the same link, you can merrily do:
<%= link_to "New", new_polymorphic_path(find_parent_models(#accommodation_facility).push(:accommodation_facility_type)) %>
Any pointers on making this solution less sketchy are very welcome :]
I can't speak for the polymorphic association problem (probably need more info on the actual error) but you are indeed headed in the right direction by defining your nested resources only one level deep. Here's a popular article by Jamis Buck that has become a reference and that you should probably check out.