Is there a simple way to write a ruby if statement to redirect a dynamic page to a static page?
I’m writing this in my pages controller where the site pages are generated. This is what I’m attempting to do.
If “/index/page1”
redirect_to “page2”
return
end
This redirects all the pages created in the pages controller to “page2”. I know the syntax is incorrect. I need help in writing out the correct way to test for the first condition.
Any help is appreciated. Thank you!
Here is an update / more information to my question.
Here is my show action in the PagesController
def show
#page = Page.find_by_url_path("/#{params[:url_path]}")
layout = "templates/#{#page.pageable.class.name.underscore}"
respond_to do |format|
format.html { render layout: layout }
end
I need to write an if statement that looks for one specific URL that gets generated. This page is created by the show action.
e.g. https://host.com/products/page1
Then redirect it to another specific URL. This is a static page on the site.
e.g. https://host.com/page2
I am having difficulty in writing the if statement to find the first page. This is what I've tried.
if "/products/page1"
redirt_to "/page2"
return
end
Depending where I put the code within the show action, I either get a double render error (as subparry explains below). Or I redirect all the pages generated through the show action to "/page2".
This application was written by a more experienced Ruby developer and I'm doing my best to maintain / update it. If I need to post more detailed information, please let me know. Thank you.
Well, as usual with these kind of requirements, there are many ways to achieve it.
As you know, different pages (views) in controllers are represented by instance methods (or Actions), for example I can imagine your PagesController looking something like this:
class PagesController < ApplicationController
def page1
# do something...
end
def page2
#do something else...
end
end
So, the easiest way would be to trigger a redirect from page1 redirect_to "https://host.com/page2", I don't know the reasons behind the decision to redirect. If it is a temporary redirect, it might be the best solution because of ease of change later, but if it is a more permanent redirection, I would implement it at the web server level (Nginx for example)
It depends on your use case.
PS: Don't forget that if you redirect in your action, it does not imply a return, so if you have more code below and another call to render or redirect, it will fail (double render error) so either you remove further renders/redirects or insert an early return.
EDIT:
Ok, now I understand better your case. You have a model called Pages which has a column called url_path which details the location of each page.
So, if I understand correctly, you'll have to do the conditional statement like this:
def show
if params[:url_path] == 'page1'
redirect_to 'https://host.com/page2'
return
end
# Rest of action code...
end
I don't know for sure how are paths stored in url_path, but you get the idea!
PS2: When you write if 'products/page1' you are basically saying if true and always entering the condition because only nil and false are falsy values, everything else is truthy.
Related
When a user makes an invalid create request for a resource, I want to send them back to the form and show them an error. As far as I can tell, calling render "new" is the standard way to do it.
This seems like a bad idea to me, because the create request has taken the user to /resources, whereas my "new" form is otherwise at /resources/new. If I use render "new", the URL in the address bar will not reflect what the user sees. If they make a GET request there, they'll end up on a different page.
I thought I could solve this problem by using redirect_to new_[resource]_path, but if I do that I lose access to the form data and errors. Surely this is not an uncommon problem. Is there a better way to deal with it?
I have the same problem with edit/update and other form/submit action pairs.
TL;DR:
class ResourcesController < ApplicationController
def new
#resource = Resource.new(resource_params)
if resource_params.present?
#resource.validate
end
end
def create
#resource = Resource.new(resource_params)
if #resource.save
redirect_to #resource, notice: 'Resource has been created'
else
redirect_to new_resource_url(resource: resource_params)
end
end
private
def resource_params
params.fetch(:resource, {}).permit(...)
end
end
I asked this myself as well in my early beginner days, on why Rails scaffold generator generates the def create action to render :new if saving failed, instead of redirecting to the correct URL just something like above, which would confuse the users because their URL would have changed from /resources/new into /resources even though they would still see the exact same Resource form on the page, and therefore they would not be able to reload the page or copy this /resources URL (for example, if they want to share this URL to someone else), because should they share this /resources URL, the others would see a list of Resources on the page instead of what the original user would have expected to see from the copied URL: which is the form page.
After the user submits the form, the URL they see on the address bar should have changed into POST http://localhost:3000/resources instead of just simply http://localhost:3000/resources. The browser hides the HTTP Method being used, that's why this leads to their possible confusion that /resources seems to have been both sometimes: a form page, sometimes a list of resources page. However, speaking of UX, every time anyone enters something or pastes something in the URL address bar of the browser, it is always automatically implied to be doing a GET request. Therefore, it makes sense for the browser-developers to just simply hide the HTTP method (i.e. GET in particular) from the users as to not confuse them.
From my answer above, I only used something like this once before (because there was a certain action that demanded me not to change the URL from the referrer form page). However, I normally render :new instead of redirect_to new_resources_url, simply because:
a redirect_to new_resource_url(resource_params) would take twice as much time and data-transmitted than simply rendering :new. Why? Because you redirect (opening up a new request) with the exact same parameters anyway. Just imagine if your form page is soooo big, and has so many input fields.
and also that there's a limit to how long a URL can be, of which won't guarantee to work if you have a very big form with very long text fields. See this SO
Updated:
As you have said though, why not just POST /resources/new instead of POST /resources when the form is submitted, right? This will solve the redirect_to new_resource_url(resource_params) problem I've shown above, because the URL after form-submit would have been the same and you can just simply render :new, then. And I actually agree on that, and I've used something like this also before long time ago. The main reason I don't use this is that it is not inline with REST standards. That is: POST /resources/new means that you're creating a Resource object "inside" the resources/new location, which then means by REST, after submitting the form, I would and should be able to access this newly created resource by doing something like GET /resources/new/the_newly_created_record, except that... you can't.
But you can still use POST /resources/new, although I would not recommend it on a normal Rails application like yours, and however strictly discourage it on an API-based Rails application.
You may be overthinking this. How about get /resources the index page vs post /resources the create action? Same url in the address bar!
It's not a problem. Neither a technical problem or an aesthetic problem.
render "new" means: render this template, not: go to this route. And although templates often have the name of the corresponding action, it's not a requirement.
I just realized I had a very hard to find bug on my website. I frequently use Model.find to retrieve data from my database.
A year ago I merged three websites causing a lot of redirections that needed to be handled. To do I created a "catch all"-functionality in my application controller as this:
around_filter :catch_not_found
def catch_not_found
yield
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
require 'functions/redirections'
handle_redirection(request.path)
end
in addition I have this at the bottom of my routes.rb:
match '*not_found_path', :to => 'redirections#not_found_catcher', via: :get, as: :redirect_catcher, :constraints => lambda{|req| req.path !~ /\.(png|gif|jpg|txt|js|css)$/ }
Redirection-controller has:
def not_found_catcher
handle_redirection(request.path)
end
I am not sure these things are relevant in this question but I guess it is better to tell.
My actual problem
I frequently use Model.find to retrieve data from my database. Let's say I have a Product-model with a controller like this:
def show
#product = Product.find(params[:id])
#product.country = Country.find(...some id that does not exist...)
end
# View
<%= #product.country.name %>
This is something I use in some 700+ places in my application. What I realized today was that even though the Product model will be found. Calling the Country.find() and NOT find something causes a RecordNotFound, which in turn causes a 404 error.
I have made my app around the expectation that #product.country = nil if it couldn't find that Country in the .find-search. I know now that is not the case - it will create a RecordNotFound. Basically, if I load the Product#show I will get a 404-page where I would expect to get a 500-error (since #product.country = nil and nil.name should not work).
My question
My big question now. Am I doing things wrong in my app, should I always use Model.find_by_id for queries like my Country.find(...some id...)? What is the best practise here?
Or, does the problem lie within my catch all in the Application Controller?
To answer your questions:
should I always use Model.find_by_id
If you want to find by an id, use Country.find(...some id...). If you want to find be something else, use eg. Country.find_by(name: 'Australia'). The find_by_name syntax is no longer favoured in Rails 4.
But that's an aside, and is not your problem.
Or, does the problem lie within my catch all in the Application Controller?
Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for pain to me. I'm not sure what specifically you're doing or what the nature of your redirections is, but based on the vague sense I get of what you're trying to do, here's how I'd approach it:
Your Rails app shouldn't be responsible for redirecting routes from your previous websites / applications. That should be the responsibility of your webserver (eg nginx or apache or whatever).
Essentially you want to make a big fat list of all the URLs you want to redirect FROM, and where you want to redirect them TO, and then format them in the way your webserver expects, and configure your webserver to do the redirects for you. Search for eg "301 redirect nginx" or "301 redirect apache" to find out info on how to set that up.
If you've got a lot of URLs to redirect, you'll likely want to generate the list with code (most of the logic should already be there in your handle_redirection(request.path) method).
Once you've run that code and generated the list, you can throw that code away, your webserver will be handling the redirects form the old sites, and your rails app can happily go on with no knowledge of the previous sites / URLs, and no dangerous catch-all logic in your application controller.
That is a very interesting way to handle exceptions...
In Rails you use rescue_from to handle exceptions on the controller layer:
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
rescue_from SomeError, with: :oh_noes
private def oh_noes
render text: 'Oh no.'
end
end
However Rails already handles some exceptions by serving static html pages (among them ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound). Which you can override with dynamic handlers.
However as #joshua.paling already pointed out you should be handling the redirects on the server level instead of in your application.
I've made mistake and allowed two different routes pointing at same place. Now I've got troubles with duplicated content.
News could be viewed in two ways:
http://website.com/posts/321 and http://website.com/news/this-is-title/321
I want to fix this mess and my idea is to check by what link user is coming. For example if someone will came through http://website.com/posts/321 I would like to redirect visitor to correct route: http://website.com/news/this-is-title/321
My very first idea is to validate request url at Post controller and then in if statement decide about redirecting or simply displaying proper view. Is it good conception?
I think it's not the best fit.
You should do this at routes level using the redirect methods.
I don't think you should bother, take a look at canonical url's if you're worried about SEO
In your posts_controller.rb show:
def show
return redirect_to post_path(params[:id]) if request.fullpath.match /(your regex)/i, :status => 301, :notice => 'This page has been permanently moved'
#post = Post.find(...)
end
return redirect_to is important because you can't call redirect or render multiple times
match the regex on request.fullpath
if you're super concerned about SEO, set the status to 301. this tells search engines that the page has been permanently moved
the notice is optional and only for asthetics after the redirect in case the user has bookmarked the old page url
As a long-time Ruby and Rails user, it never struck me until today to really think about the get-and-redirect pattern in Rails. The typical example of this would be calling a create() action, and then redirecting the user to a show() action to display the newly-created item:
class JournalEntries
def index
#entries = JournalEntry.all
end
def create
#entry = JournalEntry.new( :name => "to-do list" )
#entry.save
redirect_to :action => "index"
end
end
However, this has the inherent disadvantage that you are doubling your network traffic. This both slows down your users' site experience, as well as increasing your bandwidth charges.
So why not just do this instead:
def create
#entry = JournalEntry.new( :name => "to-do list" )
#entry.save
index
Same output, and no extra overhead required. But in addition to this, there is an even more substantial problem: redirect_to can only redirect using GET. This causes major problems for RESTful apps that use four different HTTP methods.
In my case, I wanted a user to be able to call /journals/8 and retrieve the Journal with that ID. If it wasn't found, I wanted to create a new, empty Journal object. In either case, the Journal object would then be sent to the caller.
Note that the create() method in RESTful Rails is routed from "POST /players". But since redirect_to (and the underlying HTTP redirect) can only send GET requests, it actually redirects to "GET /players", which is the index() method. This behavior is clearly wrong.
The only solution I could think of was to simply call create() instead of redirect_to() as in my example above. It seems to work fine.
Any thoughts on why redirect_to is preferred to calling actions directly?
If they do a page refresh they don't get that annoying "Resend data?" popup
It's not just that the popup is annoying (and makes no sense to most users) -- if the user clicks "yes, re-do the POST", he'll end up creating another Journal Entry (or whatever).
Also, it's annoying for the URL to read /posts/create instead of /posts since the user cannot copy / re-use it.
The reason for it is as you point out. You redirect to a GET request, which is correct when it comes to REST (only do updates with POST/PUT, only get data with GET).
A redirect surely gives a little overhead with the redirect, but since no data is actually being sent between the browser and the server except for the POST data and the redirect (which is only sending the new url to the browser) I don't think that the issue of bandwith is of concern.
But on another point, you should not redirect to /journals (by calling redirect_to :index), you should redirect it to the newly created journal entry (by calling redirect_to #entry) which will work if you set up the routes correctly by, for instance map.resources :journals
Update:
I think, for creating the Journal when one doesn't exist, you should ask the user for more input. What is the reason for you to create the entry? The entry should have some text or some other input from the user, so I think from a REST (and rails) perspective you should actually redirect it to the new() method (with a GET request) where the user can input the additional information, that one will then POST the input and create the entry and after redirect to the newly created entry.
If you don't have any extra information that needs to put in, I'm not sure how to do it in a RESTful way, but I would probably have done it by putting the creation logic in a separate method that I would call from the create() and the show() method and then just continue with the show(), not redirecting at all, but also not calling the resource method.
I'm a Python/Django person, but the reasons for the redirect is language agnostic:
If they do a page refresh they don't get that annoying "Resend data?" popup.
This gives you a completely clean, RESTful URL for the page they are looking at. If you used POST it might not matter that much, but if GET was used for the update then you definitely want to get rid of any dangling params.
My basic use case is do some processing, set flash[:notice], and then redirect to a new page. From what I can tell, redirects reset the flash tag (please correct me if I'm wrong). Is there a way to gain persistence? Using sessions isn't an option, and I have hacked around the problem using cookies, but I think there's got to be a better way.
The flash hash persists for exactly one redirect or render. So you should be fine with the default settings.
If you need to keep the flash hash for another request/redirect, you can call flash.keep.
flash.keep # keep the entire flash hash around for an extra request.
flash.keep(:notice) # keep just flash[:notice] for an extra request.
Something to be aware of in at least Rails v3.2.1 is that the flash will persist through a redirect if its not referenced at all through at least 1 redirect and load the same view after. This is a pseudo code of my recent experience:
def some_action
(code that may set a flag to redirect 1 time)
redirect_to action_path if(redirect_flag)
....
end
Running this would result in the flash[:message] being present regardless of the redirect.
def some_action
logger.debug("Flash[:message] #{flash[:message]}")
(code that may set a flag to redirect 1 time)
redirect_to action_path if(redirect_flag)
....
end
During debugging with the logger referencing flash[] it would only show up when the redirect didn't happen. I could see this being problematic if you added a reference to flash before a redirect and lost it down the line for no apparent reason.
See ruby docs here (Instance protected method: Use at the bottom)