I'm trying to create a nested path for a show action of a nested resource
user.rb
has_many :fan_receives, as: :fanzone_owner, class_name: "FanActivity"
fan_activity.rb
belongs_to :fanzone_owner, polymorphic: true
In my routes.rb
match ":fanzone_owner_id/posts/:id", to: "fan_activities#show", via: :get
The path works, but the fanzone_owner_id could be anything. For an example,
example.com/1/fan_activities/2 works
example.com/2/fan_activities/2 also works
example.com/anythingatall/fan_activities/2 also works
I would like to make it so the fanzone_owner_id of the url must match the foreign key of the fan_activity, otherwise we redirect to 404.
Would I do this with validation check of the url in the controller? I'm not sure if this approach is correct
Based on the informations I would suggested to use nested routes.
resources :fanzone_owner do
resources :fan_receive
end
For that you should've also nested attributes ready, otherwise the above routing would make no sense at all. This tutorial could be helpful.
I figured out what was wrong. I just had to use the params from the url in the controller for the show action.
In the fan_activities_controller.rb
#user = User.find(params[:fanzone_owner_id])
#fan_activity = #user.fan_receives.find(params[:id])
If the user is not found or the user isn't the fanzone_owner, then it would be a 404.
Related
TL;DR: I want to have username621/posts/title-of-post instead of member/posts/1
The changing of post id to post title was easy enough since I used the freindly_id gem to generate the slugs.
However, I am having difficulty routing to a personalized params route instead of the current namespaced route. Here is the current routing:
namespace :member do
resources :posts
end
I want to replace the member namespace to user's username. So if their username is user123, the route should be user123/posts/title-of-post.
I think that this is not very standard Rails routing and tried looking for similar questions with no results.
for more complicated routes.rb, add a path option
namespace :member, path: ":user_id" do
resources :posts
end
should get what you want, e.g. http://localhost:3000/621/posts/1
then we just have to add friendly_id to User and Post to have it become something like http://localhost:3000/username621/posts/title-of-post
however, you'll need to pore through the codebase for things like member_post_path(post) and change to member_post_path(post.user, post)
Try removing the namespace and adding path option:
resources :posts, path: '/:username/posts/'
Then if you access /username621/posts/title-of-post in your controller you'll see params[:username] = 'username621'
If you have other paths of the form /something/posts add them above this route, otherwise they will be caught by :username.
Say I have a User that has_one ContactInfo.
An unrestful way to edit the contact_info would be to do this all through a single controller with a route of:
myapp.com/users/15/edit_contact_info
A more restful way would be to use two controllers, and route it like this:
myapp.com/users/15/contact_infos/23/edit
However, I don't like this, as the route includes the contact_info_id, which isn't really necessary for identifying the correct contact_info to update. Additionally, the contact_info_id is a confusing number for a user to see. (They may know their own user id, but the contact_info_id will seem like an arbitrary number).
Is there any way to RESTfully route like below:
myapp.com/users/15/contact_infos/edit
or something similar? Is this a bad idea?
resources :users do
get "contact_info/edit" => 'users#edit_contact_info'
end
I'd used a plural route, instead of a singular route. With the singular route, I get myapp.com/users/15/contact_info/edit.
Had:
resources :users do
resources :contact_infos
end
Changed to
resources :users do
resource :contact_info
end
I have a CRUD resource defined in my routes.rb file: resource :user.
I'm adding a new controller method for the user called search_places, which is performed on the user to find other users with the same places. I'm adding a route it.
Right now, I have:
post '/user/search_place', which isn't very DRY. I'm new to Rails and I was reading the Rails routing documentation and figured that I could possibly use
resource :user do
collection do
post 'search_place'
end
end
Is this considered good practice? I know this works (it passes my rspec route test), but is that how its best done?
Thank you,
When you add second don't need of first.
Add this:
resources :user do
collection do
post 'search_place'
end
end
Remove this:
resources :user
That makes DRY :)
Suggestion: Resources name should be defined in plural if u follow rails convention. (i.e) resources :users
Working in Rails 3.2, I a polymorphic Subscription model whose subscribable_type may or may not be a nested resource. I'm trying to display the full URL link in an email view, but have no knowledge whether or not that resource is nested.
When I try url_for #model on a nested resource, it fails, expecting url_for [#parent, #model]. Unfortunately, I do not know how to discover the parent as defined in the Routes table.
Is there a way to identify the route path for a nested resource? If I could match the model to a route, I could fill in the necessary IDs.
As of right now, I've defined a method in my models called parent_resource :model that can be traversed, but I'm hoping there's a better way.
Within my routes.draw:
resources :projects do
resources :topics do
resources :comments
end
end
resources :subscriptions
(I realize I shouldn't be nesting so deeply)
Edit: Additional Information
My Subscription model is a resource I use to manage notifications. Subscribable types are provided a link that toggles the subscription for that user on that subscribable_type / subscribable_id on or off.
I then go through a Notifier < ActionMailer::Base which is provided the Subscription instance, and mail the user.
Through that setup, I'm trying to get the full url of subscription.subscribable which may be a Topic or a Project.
I realize that I could hammer out the conditions in this small case through a helper method, but I am curious to know how one would approach this if there were dozens of nested model pairs.
You mention subscription but your routes are completely different. I'm guessing the routes you gave were just an example then. I would start with trying to get rid of the custom parent_resource method you created. You can probably do the same thing simpler with adding a belongs_to through and maybe with conditions if you need too:
belongs_to :projects, :through => :topics, :conditions => ['whatever your conditions are']
I'd have one of those per parent type so I can do things like:
object.project.present?
And from there I could easily know if its nested or not and simplify things by letting rails do the parent traversal. That ought to simplify things enough to where you can at least figure out what type of subscription you have pretty easily. Next, I'd probably add some matched routes or try to cram an :as => 'somename' into my routes so I can call them directly after determining the nested part. One option would be something like this:
match "projects/subscription/:id" => "projects#subscription", :as => :project_subscription
match "other/subscription/:id" => "other#subscription", :as => :other_subscription
And so its pretty obvious to see how you can just specify which url you want now with something like:
if #object.project.present?
project_subscription_path(#object)
else
other_subscription_path(#object)
end
This may not be the best way to accomplish what I'm doing, but this works for me right now.
This builds a nested resource array off the shortest valid route helper and generates a URL:
(Tested in rails console)
resource = Comment.first
resource_name = resource.class.to_s.downcase
helper = Rails.application.routes.named_routes.helpers.grep(/.*#{resource_name}_path$/).first.to_s.split('_')
built = helper.slice!(-2,2) # Shortest possible valid helper, "comment_path"
while !(app.respond_to?(built.join("_").to_sym))
built.unshift helper.pop
end
built.pop # Get rid of "path"
resources = built.reverse.reduce([]) { |memo, name|
if name == resource_name
memo << resource
else
memo << memo.last.send(name.to_sym) # comment.topic, or topic.project (depends on belongs_to)
end
}
resources.reverse!
app.polymorphic_url(resources) # "http://www.example.com/projects/1/topics/1/comments/1"
Using Rails 3.1.1 and the gem acts_as_tree. I have googled the issue and checked similar questions here at SO (the answers are too old, or irrelevant).
I have a model called articles with a route that today looks like:
resources :articles, :path => '', :only => :show
resources :articles, :path => 'articles', :except => :show
I have three articles: "book", "chapter1" and "chapter2". Where book is parent to chapter1 and chapter2.
Today, my path to each article is: host.com/book, host.com/chapter1 and host.com/chapter2. I want the url path to be host.com/book/chapter1 and host.com/book/chapter2 , i.e. nested routes.
How can I create this in a clean simple manner?
Basically, I want a path that will be host.com/:parent_id/:parent_id/:id with N numbers of :parent_id. Pretty much how Wordpress-articles are routed.
I don't believe route globbers is the solution, but I might be wrong. It seems to give the same result for host.com/:id and host.com/foo/bar/:id which will result in duplicate content.
A)
If you have a solution for the routing and the only problem with it is that you're concerned about duplicate content issues, you could consider adding <link rel="canonical" href="..."> to the pages generated from those requests. It's not bulletproof though, as Google considers it a suggestion.
Not sure if the route globbers solution would take care of generating the URLs with parent IDs though.
B)
You don't need the parent IDs to perform the routing, correct? You just want to include them in the URLs and route those requests the same as if using the URLs like example.com/chapter1, correct?
If you'd consider a solution that's not purely at the Rails level, what about rewriting the URLs on those requests so that /:parent_id/:parent_id/:id becomes /:id before Rails processes it? That would be easier if there was a static prefix, like /articles/:parent_id/:parent_id/:id.
I imagine you'd need to write some helpers to generate the URLs with parent IDs for linking to those resources.
Duplicate Content
Either way, you'll need to generate URLs that include the parent IDs, so duplicate content issues probably aren't too likely if you only link to those resources using those URLs.
You have three "articles"... "book", "chapter1" and "chapter2" all represent same 'resources', named 'articles'. Same 'resource' cannot be nested. If you need nested routes you have to define separately parent resource and child resource. following code spinet may help you
class Book < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :chapter
accepts_nested_attributes_for :chapters
end
class Chapter < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :book
acts_as_tree :parent_id
end
match '*p1/*p2/*p3/.../*pn' => 'articles#show'
The ... is not literal, just define as many parameters as you need upto n.
URL:
host.com/book/chapter1
params[:p1] = 'book'
params[:p2] = 'chapter1'
params[:p3] = nil
URL:
host.com/book/chapter1/section2/sentence4
params[:p1] = 'book'
params[:p2] = 'chapter1'
params[:p3] = 'section2'
params[:p4] = 'sentence4'
params[:p5] = nil
That'd have to be your LAST route.
I think it would also make any catchall routes inoperable, but they're now commented out in the default routes.rb in Rails 3, If you use them, you'd have to manually specify all routes normally handled by the old style catchall routes.
And, if you have a controller named articles, you could never have a book titled 'articles' same with all your controllers, To be safe you probably have to rename all your controllers, i.e articles becomes X_articles. You could never have a book call X_articles then, and so on....
Totally untested.
What you're looking to do is use Rails for something it isn't made for. No matter what answer you get here, it either won't be RESTful, DRY, or make sense to be used with Active Record. Consider restructuring your idea, or bring your application to another platform if it's not too late.
Source to back up my claim: https://stackoverflow.com/a/174287/628859