This is related to a question I asked here: undefined method `posts_path' for #<#<Class:0x007fe3547d97d8>:0x007fe3546d58f0>
I was told to switch my controllers, view etc from "post" to "posts" which fixed the issue, however if I did want to use the URL /post/new, how would I do that without receiving the "undefined method `posts_path'" error I was before?
I don't understand why it's looking for "posts_path" when my controller, model and view are all called "post".
Add this before resources :posts line/block in routes.rb file,
get '/post/new', to: 'posts#new'
When you define routes using resources :posts, by default the route to the new action is /posts/new, So to override the same you need to define custom route like I did above. Also, to search the routes, Rails scans the routes.rb file from top to bottom, whatever matches first is taken. Therefore, to override the default behaviour, I asked you to define this custom route before the default routes.
Hope that helps!
I would suggest that you take a look at Rails Routing Guide.
In short:
Because the model Post describes only one record, it makes sence to call the model Post and not Posts.
With resources :posts within your routes.rb you define that you will have multiple Post objects and you want to expose all CRUD actions with a restfull interface through your controller. Your controller is named PostsController that too makes sence, because your controller provides CRUD actions for all Post objects not only one.
Furthor more rails generate some helpers for every defined route:
posts_(path|url) returns /posts=> shows multiple posts => plural helper name
new_post_(path|url) returns /posts/new => show one post for edit => singular helper name
edit_post_(path|url)(:id) returns /posts/:id/edit => edit one post => singular helper name
photo_(path|url)(:id) => show one post => singular helper name
The route name is always plural because you are always changing the resources. For instance add a new post to the posts resources.
You can also define a singleton resource via resource :geocoder in this case you say you only have one of this thing. For singletons helpers and routes are slightly different. But I saw it until now only rarely.
Related
My situation I have a "Parent" model and controller. I want to know the best practice for adding independent pages such as a dashboard for users. My thought is that I can create a view dashboard.html.erb and inside the parent controller create a method of:
Parent controller
def dashboard
end
Routes.rb
get 'parents/dashboard'
I've done this once and it worked fine, but is was for a 'child' model.
When I run this same situation in the parent model I get the error
ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound in ParentsController#show
Couldn't find Parent with 'id'=dashboard
1.) All I've done is add a view, added the dashboard model to the controller, and placed get 'parents/dashboard' into the routes.rb and it tries to reference the show method??? Why?
2.) And is this the wrong way to add pages/actions to a rails application?
Do this:
#config/routes.rb
resources :parents do
get :dashboard, on: :collection #-> url.com/parents/dashboard
end
And is this the wrong way to add pages/actions to a rails application?
It's not "wrong", it's just ineffective, as demonstrated by your problem.
The problem you have is you've included your custom route below the resources :parents route. Because resources creates a /:id url which captures any requests sent to parents/:id, your "dashboard" request is being sent to the show action of the parents controller:
There are two remedies to your issue:
Put get 'parents/dashboard' above the resources :parents directive
Include an additional route to resources :parents (above)
You must remember that Rails matches your request with a route. That means the first route to match your request is processed.
So if you have...
#config/routes.rb
resources :parents
get "parents/dashboard"
... Rails will assume the dashboard is the :id in url.com/parents/:id, thus sending the request to show.
Apart from the very top code (the recommended answer), you could have the following:
#config/routes.rb
get "parents/dashboard", to: :dashboard
resources :parents
If you want to add an additional route with an :id then the syntax is different.
get 'parent_dashboard/:id', to: 'parents#dashboard'
Notice that the person string after get. This is used as the address of the website, when the user hits this, it would go to localhost:3000/parent_dashboard/1 if it is the first dashboard. You can exclude :id if you'd like. Of course, this would be different from the use case.
The second part of the route syntax is the :to, this method tells your app which controller and method to look at.
Hope this helps!
If you want to add a new view to the parents folder. Just do this:
parents_controller.rb
def dashboard
#parent = Parent.find(params[:id])
end
routes.rb
get '/parents/:id/dashboard', to: 'parents#dashboard', as: :parents_dashboards
resources :parents
Then in your parents/dashboard.html.erb view you can do everything that you can do in the parents/show view.
The link to your dashboard view would be parents_dashboards_path and you might have to use parents_dashboards_path(#parent) or parents_dashboards_path(parent) in certain circumstances.
This is an example of a custom path that works without using nested resources to accomplish access to the parent's dashboard.
I am using this approach in a project so I would like to hear any critique or comments on this approach. PEACE I'M OUTTA HERE!
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.
As of Rails 4.2, I cannot do the following:
get 'profile', to: 'profile#index', as: 'profile'
get 'profile/:slug', to: 'profile#show', as: 'profile'
because it will raise error saying route is already defined. Why is that? Obviously profile_path and profile_path(User.last.slug) are not the same, and there should be no difficulty differentiating the two even if they happen to share the same base name (You check if a param is passed).
Thoughts?
In rails, the helper names for different routes should be different. And hence, as you rightly understood, you will receive an error if you use the same helper name (ie as: 'profile' in your case) for two different routes.
This restriction in Rails helps maintain sanity in your routes.rb file as well as in your application. For instance consider two methods for a controller:
class XyzController < ApplicationController
def method_a(param1)
end
def method_b(param1)
end
end
In your routes file if there was no restriction of keeping helper names different, you could have used :
get 'xyz/method_a', to: 'profile#method_a', as: 'profile_method'
get 'xyz/method_b', to: 'profile#method_b', as: 'profile_method'
Correspondingly in your view file:
link_to 'link_1', profile_method_path('param1') #intended to route for method_a
link_to 'link_2', profile_method_path('param2') #intended to route for method_b
As obvious, in the view file, not only is it difficult to make out which route is intended for which method, its also not possible to route to any other controller method using the helper 'profile_method' except the method that is first to use this helper in your routes.rb file (as routes are read sequentially).
Hope this helps :)
For both routes you specified as: 'profile' and that's your problem here. Besides that, use pluralized route names for #index action, e.g:
get 'profiles', to: 'profile#index'
This question already has answers here:
difference between collection route and member route in ruby on rails?
(5 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Reading this: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#adding-more-restful-actions
What does it mean to add a 'member route'?
or do add a route to the collection?
What is a member and a collection when talking about routes?
They're both ways to add additional actions to a resource-based route in Rails.
A member route requires an ID, because it acts on a member.
A collection route doesn't require an ID because it acts on a collection of objects.
I like to think of them in terms of RESTful URLs. Consider the basics for a resource/model Foo
GET /foo # FooController#index
GET /foo/:id # FooController#show
GET /foo/new # FooController#new
POST /foo # FooController#create
GET /foo/:id/edit # FooController#edit
PUT /foo/:id # FooController#update
DELETE /foo/:id # FooController#destroy
Notice how:
Some routes have :id placeholders for Foo.id, and so refer to a specific Foo
Some routes have no :id, and thus refer to all Foos (and/or no specific foo, as in #new and #create)
Some routes (index/create, show/update/destroy) have the same URL, and use HTTP methods to differentiate between them
Some routes (edit/show) are basically the same (method & URL prefix) except for a different suffix (including "no suffix") at the end.
Member routes and collection routes let you add additional routes/actions using the same techniques as I listed above.
A member route adds a custom action to a specific instance using the URL suffix and HTTP method you provide. So, if you had a member route declaration of :member => { :bar => :get }. you'd get an additional route of:
GET /foo/:id/bar # FooController#bar
Note how it overloads GET /foo/:id in the same way that `edit' does. This is how you'd implement a "delete" action that provides a UI for the "destroy" action.
Similarly, a collection route adds an overload to the collection and/or a non-specific instance (it's up to you to decide exactly what it implies). So, if you declared :collection => { :baz => :get }, you'd get an additional route:
GET /foo/baz # FooController#baz
...in very much the same way as new.
You can also customize the HTTP method.
For example, I just recently had a project where I needed a "reply" action on a Comment. It's basically the same idea as Comment#create (which uses POST), except that it's in reference to a specific parent Comment. So, I created a member route: :member => { :reply => :post }. This gave me:
POST /comment/:id/reply # CommentController#reply
This keeps the routes restful while still expanding upon the basic 7 actions.
The built in member routes are show, edit, update and destroy, since they handle an individual record. index would be a collection route as it returns a collection of records.
So it really depends if you want to do something with a single record (member) or multiple records (collection).
The url helpers reflect singular (member) and plural (collection). For example:
This is a member:
person_path(#person)
This is a collection:
people_path()
If you define a custom collection path, it could look like this in your routes.rb:
resources :people do
member do
put :make_manager
end
collection do
get :show_managers
end
end
To make somebody a manger:
make_manager_person_path(#person)
To list all managers:
show_managers_people_path()
I don't think that the route "cares" if you use it differently, but this is the Rails way. It will make your code easier to read and other coders will have it easier to understand and maintain your code.
I seriously cant understand why this is so hard... I have some experience with other mvc frameworks but always heard rails was the easiest to code in.... right now I cant even get to my controller methods if i want to.
I used scaffold to creat 'student' which automatically created for me the controller, model and views for basic CRUD.. but now I just want to add a method "helloworld" to my controller and when i go to
http://localhost:3000/students/helloworld
I get a
Couldn't find Student with ID=helloworld
error.
what am I missing?.. I know its got to do with routes and the REST thing but I still cant figure out then how else am I supposed to use my own methods... do I have to edit my routes.rb file everytime I create a new method?.. please help
Routes for models in Rails are divided into 2 groups. Ones that act on a single objects (think edit, update, delete) and ones that don't have a single object to act on (new, index). If you want to create your own method that doesn't take an object ID you need to add a route config for that method in your routes file. The methods are either member or collection methods. Member methods URLs look like /model/id/method_name. Collection methods look like what you want (/model/method_name). Here is an example for your students model (routes.rb)
map.resources :students, :member => {:some_member_function_example => :get },
:collection => { :helloworld => :get }
Note: You can just remove the :member => ... from the config and only have collection if you have no member methods to define.
Link /students/foo will not call the foo method of the students_controller. That's because REST mappings in Rails includes /:controller/:id route for GET. And your link matches this pattern.
In order to override that path (for methods with no parameters, like yours) use the following snippet:
map.resources :students, :collection => {:method_name => :get}