Now i have a fresh rails 3 install running over rvm 1.9.2
I generated a controller using the follow instruction:
rails generate controller blog index
The output is
create app/controllers/blog_controller.rb
route get "blog/index"
invoke erb
create app/views/blog
create app/views/blog/index.html.erb
invoke test_unit
create test/functional/blog_controller_test.rb
invoke helper
create app/helpers/blog_helper.rb
invoke test_unit
create test/unit/helpers/blog_helper_test.rb
but in browser when i try to get to http://localhost:3000/blog i get:
No route matches "/blog"
but if i type http://localhost:3000/blog/index
it renders the index view.
doesn't it works like Rails 2? where i get to the index view by default with just putting the controller name on the url ?
thanks.
If you look into routes.rb you'll see
get "/blog/index" => "blog#index"
So just remove it with
get "/blog" => "blog#index"
or you can use resources here.
But only question: why do you use singular form? It is nonsensical to call index to singular noun. You should use or "blog#show" as a resource or "blogs#index" as a resources.
Conventions in Rails is a kind of basement. Don't break them if you can follow them
For rails 3:
match '/blog', :controller => 'blog', :action => 'index'
Rails generate does not generate resources for your controller by default. You specified one action for your controller, 'index', so in your case you end up with this in config/routes.rb:
Blog::Application.routes.draw do
get "blog/index"
The simplest thing to do would be to change this to:
get "blog", :to => 'blog#index'
ian.
This is a guess, based on my experience with Rails 2, but here's what I think is happening:
If you'd generated your controller with the scaffold option (that's still in Rails 3, right?), it would have created a model in addition to your controller, and added the corresponding routes via a call to map.resources (or Rails 3 equivalent) - this last bit is what gives you the /models routes you're expecting.
But since you just generated the controller, no model was created, and thus Rails doesn't put in a map.resources statement in routes.rb - map.resources really only makes sense when there's a model underlying your controller. In fact, I don't think it adds any special routes when you generate a controller; you're getting to your index by one of the default routes: /:controller/:action.
So if you want to get to your index from /blog, you'll have to add the route yourself. Luckily, it should be a one-liner.
Hope this helps!
PS: And if you're paranoid, you'll want to disable those default routes before you go to production - they allow GET requests to trigger actions that change your database (e.g. GET:/blog/destroy), opening you up to Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks.
Add this to your routes.rb file match ':controller(/:action(/:id))(.:format)'
It's better if you add it at the bottom of the routes.rb file.
The problem with this approach is that it will make all your actions available through get request. So be careful with that.
Instead of manual routing you can go to /app/controllers/application_controller.rb and add a blank index method
def index
end
make sure your generated controller extends the application controller, and boom all your generated controllers do what you want
Tested on Rails 3.2.*
Related
I am working on a rails app, and have generated a Controller via
rails g controller Pics index upload
but now I would like to add another action
delete
do I do this by manually adding a delete method in the Pics controller?
Or do I need to run another generation. My concern is that by adding manually something may not get included (not sure what it would be, but something under the hood.)
Is this the best way of adding a new action to a generated controller?
If you add manually, just make sure you have the right route on your routes.rb.
Let's say you create your delete action inside your Pics controller.
def delete
# do stuff
end
On your routes.rb, you need to append the route to your resource like this, remembering to analyse if it is a resource that acts upon a member of your resource, or a collection. (More about this you can read on this guide http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#adding-more-restful-actions).
resource :pics do
collection do
post :delete
end
end
Or
resource :pics do
member do
post :delete
end
end
Remember that all RESTFUL actions are handled by default by the rails router, again, try to read the guide i showed earlier for precise information about the topic. Hope it helps.
I have a controller JaxDataController for responding to ajax requests which has no associated model.
It has a single routes.rb entry match "/jaxdata/:shape_set_id" => "jax_data#fetch"
I'd like to include the path to this model within a .js.coffee.erb view elsewhere in my app. Are there any routing helpers available for this? Failing that, where should i declare a routing helper to be used in any view?
If you specify the :as option in your route, it will create helpers for that route. Thus:
match "/jaxdata/:shape_set_id" => "jax_data#fetch", :as => :jaxdata
You should then be able to refer to jaxdata_path in your views.
See section 3.6 of this guide: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html
I am newbe to rails3
I have 20 controllers in my rails app..redirecting from one controller to another one my rails app gives No Route matches
should I add resources :controllername entry for each controller in routes.rb file?
or any other general method to do this?
When you run rake:routes is your route there? If it is not you'll get 'No route matches'. It is much better to use your routes.rb config then to continuously redirect from one controller to another
I've on a while on rails now and here's the problem I've been having on and on:
When I create a controller through:
"rails generate controller ControllerName ViewName"
I get everything working as I want but if for some reason I create the controller through:
"rails generate controller ControllerName"
and then just add ViewName.html.erb to the folder inside views that has the same name as my controller things would go wrong.
So the concrete case is me writing:
rails generate controller Subjects list show.
Which creates for me:
1.controllers>subjects_controller.rb
2.views>subjects>list.html.erb
3.views>subjects>show.html.erb
So this whole thing works fine.But as I already said if I need another view; let's say "new" I just add "new.html.erb" next to the other *.html.erb files and an action:
def new
end
to my subjects_controller.rb then it won't work.
The two previous views would keep working but any other "*html.erb" created outside the command line wouldn't.
Is there anywhere else where info about views is being stored?.
I'm a Windows 7 user (32 bit).Rails version=3.0.3. WebServer=WEBrick.
Text editor = E-TextEditor
This is most likely caused by your routes not being correctly configured. So it would be helpful to see the content of your routes.rb
In your case I think the best way to configure the routes is to use the resources mapping:
resources :subjects
This will by default create routing for the standard RESTful actions :index, :show, :edit, :update, :new, :create and :destroy.
For more detailed information about the routing, I would recommend Rails Routing from the Outside In
I have a nested resource, setup like this:
resources :chickens do
resources :eggs
end
The views for the EggsController are under views/eggs, but:
describe "eggs/index.html.erb" do
gives a "No route matches {:action => "create", :controller => "eggs"} error on calling render. How do I get RSpec to find the correct (nested) route for view specs?
As a side note, is there any way to specify a nested resource to the Rails 3 controller scaffold generator?
The test looks ok to me...
By any chance do you have a form on your eggs/index.html.erb for creating new eggs that might not yet be wired up correctly? It seems it may be trying to render the index view but failing because the view is trying build a route that doesn't exist? You'd want to make sure that the form is using the correct nested resource route. Does the view render when you load it up in the browser?