I have a route with a namespace
namespace :publishers do
resources :authors
get 'books' :to => 'books'
get 'books/custom_report/:id', :to => "curriculos#custom_report"
end
Often I will have to make links in my application and I know than it`s possible to use a alias for routing like this:
<%= link_to "Books", publishers_books_path %>
I call that publishers_books_path a alias route, does this is the correct name?
Furthermore, I still not able to understand the logic with this alias naming because i can`t use for a new or a custom action like this
link_to 'Show the report', publishers_books_custom_report_path(params[:id])
I'm always get a error of undefined_method for publishers_books_custom_report_path
So there`s some questions
First of all whats it`s the correct name of this feature in RoR?
How I can use the custom_report as aliases to link_to? And also if i need to use some basic operations like new, update, insert?
Can someone give me the link to the documentation to really understant that feature?
First of all whats it`s the correct name of this feature in RoR?
The docs use "path helper" and "named route helpers" interchangeably.
How I can use the custom_report as aliases to link_to?
Use rails route or visit /rails/info/routes in your dev server to get a list of all your routes, their helpers, and controller actions.
Apparently it is publishers_path which doesn't seem right. You can fix this with an as.
get 'books/custom_report/:id', to: "curriculos#custom_report", as: :books_custom_report
And also if i need to use some basic operations like new, update,
insert?
A get declares just that one specific route. If you need all the operations on a model, declare it as a resource.
namespace :publishers do
resource :authors
resource :books
get 'books/custom_report/:id', to: "curriculos#custom_report", as: :books_custom_report
end
Can someone give me the link to the documentation to really understand that feature?
Rails Routing From The Outside In.
Related
I hope the title is not to misleading, as I don't know a better title for the problem I'm working on:
I have a doctor which belongs to location and specialty. I'd like to route to show action of the doc controller like this:
/dentist/berlin/7
I defined my routes like this:
get ':specialty/:location/:id', to: 'docs#show'
And in my views create the following url to link to the show action of the doc controller:
<%= link_to doc.name, "#{doc.specialty.name}/#{doc.location.name}/#{doc.id}" %>
Is this a good solution to the problem? If not, is there a cleaner way to construct urls like this possibly using resources? What the heck is the name for a this problem?
Thank your very much for your help in advance.
For references, you should have a look at this page (especially the end of section 2.6)
If it is only for a single route, it's okay as you did. But then if you want to have more than one route (like /dentist/berlin/7, /dentist/berlin/7/make_appointment, etc.) you might want to structure a bit more your routes so as to take advantage of rails resources.
For example, instead of
get ':specialty/:location/:id', to: 'doctors#show'
get ':specialty/:location/:id/appointment', to: 'doctors#new_appointment'
post ':specialty/:location/:id/appointment', to: 'doctors#post_appointment'
You could have something like this (the code is almost equivalent, see explanation below)
resources :doctors, path: '/:specialty/:location', only: [:show] do
member do
get 'new_appointment'
post 'create_appointment'
end
end
Explanation
resources will generate the RESTful routes (index, show, edit, new, create, destroy) for the specified controller (doctors_controller I assume)
The 'only' means you don't want to add all the RESTful routes, just the ones specified
Then you want to add member actions, ie. actions that can be executed on a particular item of the collection. You can chose different syntaxes
resources :doctors do
member do
# Everything here will have the prefix /:id so the action applies to a particular item
end
end
# OR
resources :doctors do
get 'new_appointement', on: :member
end
By default, the controller action is the same as the path name you give, but you can also override it
member do
get 'appointment', action: 'new_appointment'
post 'appointment', action: 'post_appointment'
end
Rails has some wonderful helpers when it comes to routing !
The correct approach is to give your route a name, like this:
get ':specialty/:location/:id', to: 'docs#show', as: 'docs_show'
Then you can use it like this:
<%= link_to doc.name, docs_show_path(doc.specialty.name, doc.location.name, doc.id) %>
Note 1:
Rails appends _path at the end of the route names you define.
Note 2:
You can see all the available named routes by executing rake routes.
I want to create a link to a named route
My routes.db have the following rule
match '/tablero', to: 'tablero#index',via: 'get' , as: 'tablero_main'
I can see the route using rake routes
tablero_main GET /tablero(.:format) tablero#index
But when i use the link_to as follows i get the "undefined local variable or method `tablero_main'" error.
<%= link_to "Tablero",tablero_main %>
Is there anything else i am missing?
You need to append path to the method name, like so:
<%= link_to "Tablero", tablero_main_path %>
Routes
To help you further, you'll need to also consider the role of resources in your routes
As Rails uses a resourceful routing infrastructure, every route you create should be based around a resource. In your case:
#config/routes.rb
resources :tablero, only: :index #-> domain.com/tablero
Admittedly, this will give you the path tablero_index_path, rather than tablero_main_path, but it ensures your routes are not only DRY, but also extensible. Nothing worse than having 100's of "match routes in a route file.
--
Helpers
After that, remember to use the correct route_path helper:
Each "route" path is basically just a helper method (which builds a URL for you). When using link_to, you need to reference the path helper directly. You didn't do this, which lead Rails to come back with the undefined method error
New to rails, so if this is discussed somewhere, just link me off: I had a good search but all I could find were people trying to figure out how to use link_to, not any discussion of this comment:
link_to "Profile", profile_path(#profile)
# => Profile
in place of the older more verbose, non-resource-oriented
link_to "Profile", :controller => "profiles", :action => "show", :id => #profile
# => Profile
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/UrlHelper.html#method-i-link_to
I get that the latter is more verbose, and thus undesirable, but the former seems like a strange thing to be recommending.
If I have an action at say: /blah/add and I link to it using:
link_to "Link", link_add_path
Then I'm linking to mysite.com/link/add. This is a hard coded url.
If I change the route that this maps to, I have to change every instance of link_to in my code base to point to the new absolute url. This seems crazy.
However, if I link to it using:
link_to "Link", :controller => "thing", :action => "add"
Then the url is dynamically determined. If I have to change the path all I do is edit config/routes.rb and not touch any of my code. This seems like much lower maintenance.
I appreciate it's slightly more complex than that, the blah_path variable is not actually a static route, and actually contains some smarts like the application base url and prevents you from linking to urls that don't exist, but it seems like a step backwards to facilitate a fractionally less verbose syntax.
So, what's up with that?
What technical reason would you choose the former link_to syntax over the latter?
"You're doing it wrong" :P
Seriously though: use named resources, and here's why that's cool:
Example:
you've got this in your routes file:
resources :user_orders
And you are using "user_orders_path" everywhere. Then you do a refactor and decide (because the orders are now generic) that you want the controller to be called "orders" but you don't want to break all your old code. you can do this:
resources :user_orders, controller: "orders"
And your existing links will continue to work! (plus you can add a "orders" resource to move things over to the new scheme)
There's also neat things like named links:
match 'exit' => 'sessions#destroy', :as => :logout
I'd also like to add, if you needed to refactor your controller using the old link syntax - you'd still have to change a pile of controller links!
Then I'm linking to mysite.com/link/add. This is a hard coded url.
No, it's not. link_add_path is a method generated by Rails that points to a specific route in your config/routes.rb. You can see this by running
rake routes | grep link_add
If I change the route that this maps to, I have to change every instance of link_to in my code base to point to the new absolute url. This seems crazy.
No, you don't. Take the following example
get "link/add", as: :link_add, controller: :links, action: :add
If I run the above
rake routes | grep link_add
I get
link_add GET /link/add(.:format) links#add
But what if I change the name of my controller to UrisController? Just change the route in config/routes.rb
get "link/add", as: :link_add, controller: :uris, action: :add
and now you have
link_add GET /link/add(.:format) uris#add
The link_to's don't have to change because the link_add_path method is still mapped to the newly modified line in my config/routes.rb because the route name is the same. With your more explicit way of specifying controllers/actions for every link_to, you have to go through every link and update it manually to reflect the new controller: :uris controller.
Read about Naming Routes in the rails guide.
Having a rough time with my routes in my rails 3 app, I want to have shallow routes like this:
/san-francisco/union-square
But my router insists on having them like so:
/cities/san-francisco/neighborhoods/union-square
I've used this for my routes.rb
shallow do
resources :cities do
resources :neighborhoods do
resources :locations
end
end
end
But still I have this:
city_neighborhood_locations GET /cities/:city_id/neighborhoods/:neighborhood_id/locations(.:format)
Shouldn't it look like:
city_neighborhood_locations GET /:city_id/:neighborhood_id/:id(.:format)
I'm not sure how to fix this, additionally I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with my links, I want to be able to use the syntax:
link_to neighborhood.name, [:city, neighborhood]
but that seems to invert the :id, and :neighborhood_id when the request comes to the controller, any help on this would be really really helpful!
What you're looking for is not typically known as "shallow routing".
Shallow routing, as Rails defines it, would look like this:
city_neighborhoods GET /cities/:city_id/neighborhoods
new_city_neighborhood GET /cities/:city_id/neighborhoods/new
(create_city_neighborhood) POST /cities/:city_id/neighborhoods
neighborhood GET /neighborhoods/:neighborhood_id
Without shallow routing, that last route would be:
city_neighborhood GET /cities/:city_id/neighborhoods/:neighborhood_id
Shallow routing lets you nest a resource underneath another resource (neighborhood under city in this case), but gives you absolute/un-nested routes for the nested resource when the nesting isn't necessary.
This makes sense when you're referencing the nested resource with unique identifiers that are not dependent on the ID of the parent resource. In your example, that's not true (there's potentially a "Union Square" outside of San Francisco; there's definitely going to be duplicates like "Chinatown"), so you probably do not want shallow routes for this case.
What you're wanting is positionally-dependent routing, where the type of resource is assumed/fixed depending on where it appears in the URL. (For instance, you couldn't have anything other than a "neighborhood" follow a "city" under the scheme you outlined.)
I don't think the Rails resource(s) commands will support that by default, but you could probably do it with manual match commands. This is off the top of my head:
match ":city_id", :controller => "cities", :action => "show"
match ":city_id/:neighborhood_id", :controller => "neighborhoods", :action => "show"
This is still RESTful/resource-based, it's just not using the standard Rails way of naming routes.
I've been following
https://github.com/thoughtbot/paperclip/wiki/Restricting-Access-to-Objects-Stored-on-Amazon-S3
and
Rails 3, paperclip + S3 - Howto Store for an Instance and Protect Access to try and get Paperclip's expiring links to work. I believe most of what I'm running into is one of the routing variety.
In my pieces_controller I put a method in like this
def download
redirect_to #asset.asset.expiring_url(1000)
end
And then in my routes, I put this:
match "pieces/download"
Then in my view I have:
<%= link_to download_asset_path(piece)%>
It would seem to be far from working, and I'm not sure what is messed up. I know I'm getting routing errors for one, but it's also telling me that my download_asset_path is undefined, which is likely also routing related... I feel like I'm doing everything all wrong.
Tearing my hair out. Thanks!
Try modifying your routes file to:
match 'pieces/download' => 'pieces#download', :as => 'download_asset'
Your match needs to tell which controller#action to go to, and the as option will allow you to name the route download_asset_path.
If your pieces controller is for a Piece resource it could be cleaner like:
resources :pieces do
member do
get :download
end
end
But then you would want to change the link to:
link_to 'Link text', download_piece_path(piece)
For further reading: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html