Is there a way to use resource routing instead of writing the routes one by one if my methods for which the default expects parameters don't use parameters?
For example, if I had a routes file like below, the expected path for the update method would be like this: /cats/:id (docs)
# routes.rb
Rails.application.routes.draw do
resources :cats, only: [:create, :update]
end
However, I don't require any params for my update method, meaning the path should be /cats.
I know there's a way to rename the params and not use :id, but I didn't find anything on disabling them. I tried adding param: nil to the end of the line but it didn't work.
As I wrote initially, I know this can be done if I write the routes one by one like below. My question is whether I can use resources to do it. Thank you!
# routes.rb
Rails.application.routes.draw do
post 'cats', to: 'cats#create'
put 'cats', to: 'cats#update'
end
This is exactly the use case for singular resources. Quote from the Rails Guides:
Sometimes, you have a resource that clients always look up without referencing an ID. For example, you would like /profile to always show the profile of the currently logged in user.
Change our routing to
resource :cats, only: [:create, :update]
And the following routes will be created:
cats PATCH /cats(.:format) cats#update
PUT /cats(.:format) cats#update
POST /cats(.:format) cats#create
As far as I know, there is not, resource is just a helper to create the standard verb-based CRUD routes, if you want custom routes you need to define your update route the way you did in your second example, of course, you can still use resource for your create route and just pass only: :create.
Related
I would like my REST API to have several routes, such as:
GET /posts/
GET /posts/1
POST /posts
GET /users/
GET /users/1
GET /users/1/posts
POST /users/1/posts
Is it possible to reuse the same controller for those nested routes under the users collection?
It looks like you want nested routes. Try this is your config/routes.rb
resources :posts
resources :users do
resources :posts
end
This has more info. You could also use match or post and get verb methods individually. There are also many options for nested routes.
https://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html.
ALTERNATIVELY
in config/routes.rb:
get 'users/:id/posts', to: 'users#posts'
and in controllers/users_controller.rb
before_action :set_user, only: [:users_posts, :show, :edit, :update, :destroy]
...
def posts
#posts = #user.posts
end
With the second option you can KISS by keeping POST/PATCH/UPDATE/DESTROY at their native home like /posts and /posts/42. Just treat :user_id as a form variable in that case, with whatever extra validation you might need, perhaps referencing a session var.
LASTLY
You can actually put this in your config/routes.rb. But now you're probably writing new forms because :user_id is a route parameter. I'd file that under extra complexity. Maybe it fits your situation though.
post 'users/:id/posts', to: 'users#posts_create'
Is it considered best practice to use resourceful routes in Rails whenever possible, even if the CRUD verbs don't really match the actions being performed (details follow)?
In my Rails app, I'm implementing an OAuth login system using sorcery's external module. I closely followed their official tutorial, which defines the routes for the OAuth methods like this.
# config/routes.rb
post "oauth/callback" => "oauths#callback"
get "oauth/callback" => "oauths#callback" # for use with Github, Facebook
get "oauth/:provider" => "oauths#oauth", :as => :auth_at_provider
Basically, auth_at_provider is called when the user clicks the "Login via [Provider Name]" button, and the callback is called once they log in via the external provider.
I left the routes as-is, but a teammate reviewing it suggested we use resource routing, like this for example:
resources :oauth only: [:index, :create, :show]
I guess this is technically possible, but for me the singular routes defined in the tutorial are much more intuitive and self-explanatory. So my questions are:
Is it considered better (or common) to use resourceful routes even in cases like this? or
Are resourceful routes just a shorthand for cookie-cutter routes, and should only be used for straightforward controllers?
I wouldn't use the resource(s) helpers. The name tells you it's used for resources and oauth logic are not resources.
You could refactor the routes a little bit though
namespace :oauth do
match :callback, via: [:get, :post]
get ":provider", action: :oauth, as: :at_provider
end
This creates this routes:
oauth_callback GET|POST /oauth/callback(.:format) oauth#callback
oauth_at_provider GET /oauth/:provider(.:format) oauth#oauth
They are basically the same routes, DRYer and without misleading "resource" wording.
*Note the little change from "auth_at_provider" to "oauth_at_provider" introduced by the namespace
It is generally considered best practice to use resourceful routing when you're actually doing CRUD on a resource, ie:
resources :users # for creating, reading, updating, deleting users
If you'd have to create an entirely new resource and controller just for one create endpoint (for example), I don't see any harm in breaking the pattern and using non-resourceful routes, but I try to avoid doing so.
You should try to use resourceful routing with names that makes sense, to keep your routes consistent:
scope path: 'oauth' do
resource :callback, only: [:show, :update] # use show/update instead of callback method
resources :providers, only: [:show] # use show instead of auth_at_provider
end
So your routes would look like:
POST oauth/callback
GET oauth/callback
GET oauth/providers/:id
I have my routes set up as
scope "/admin" do
resources :profiles
end
So I am getting the expected routes with /admin/profiles. I want to exclude the show action from having this prefix. Is there an easy way to do this? Every solution I saw in the docs was around nested resources, I'm sure I overlooked something though. Thanks!
I think
scope "/admin", do
resources :profiles, except: :show
end
is what you need.
see more at http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#restricting-the-routes-created
I am playing with Rails 4 in a test application. I have an arbitrary URL that isn't standard like a resources :foo type URL. Ideally the end result I'd like is to be able to go to:
/contests/:id/enter
In views, it would be great if I can then set a link using a named helper such as:
edit_contests_enter(:id)?
What would be the best way to define the route above so I can use the helper path with an arbitrary URL like the one above? It doesn't necessarily have to be edit_contests_enter(:id) but as long as the helper path leads to the URL as suggested above, that would be fantastic.
I assume that your contest is a resource, and when your visitor goes to /contests/:id/enter you want them to create an object user <=> contest. Let's call it participation.
Now participation is exactly like any other resource in your Rails app, so you'd have a routes.rb file looking like
resources :contests do
resources :participations
end
You don't want people to do anything other than create a participation, like edit or destroy them. And perhaps you want a nice URI like /contests/:id/enter. All you have to do is
resources :contests do
resources :participations, :only => [:new, :create]
get "enter" => "participations#new"
end
Doing such will give you a routes helper named contest_enter. In your participations#new form, you'll POST as usual to /contests/:id/participations.
If you have a resources block for :contests, you could just define a new "member" route on the ContestsController using:
resources :contests do
member do
get :enter
end
end
And that would automatically generate you a named member route, the name of which you could find by running rake routes.
I created a search and replace controller, with just an index action. Since it's meant to go under one of my restful controllers created by a scaffold, i setup the following in the routes file:
resources :sites do
resource :search_and_replace, only: [:index]
end
However, it does not appear when I run rake routes. If I switch to resources, it does. But the method name is site_search_and_replace_index. The pluralization of resource doesn't feel right either, since this is not around multiple records in a table.
The index action doesn't exist in a singular resource. This makes sense if you think of the meaning of the action: index of what, there's only one resource? Use show instead:
resources :sites do
resource :search_and_replace, only: [:show]
end
Are you sure you want to have search and replace as a resource? There might be other options that are more useful: Adding more restful actions