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!
Related
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.
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 have a resource - activities, that is nested under provider. everything is working great for all my restful resources.
I'd like to add a new action to list all activities regardless of provider. So I think that should not be nested.
I tried to do this like so:
resources :activities, only: [:list]
But this doesn't create a route when i rake routes, and I get the error:
No route matches [GET] "/activities/list"
How do I do this? Is this the right way to go about what I want to do - show a list of all providers activities with a different view / layout than the nested provider#activities action.
OK. I (re) read the manual and did what it said, and that worked. Go figure.
resources :activities do
get 'list', :on => :collection
end
So that adds the list action to the routes with path & url methods & the nested resources still work.
I'm not very familiar with routing, but here is my dilemma:
I have a photos controller with the usual show, edit, etc. views. I am trying to build a view to moderate photos. I have a moderate.html.erb view under my photos views. I have also defined moderate method in my photos_controller. If I try to access this view like /photos/moderate I get Couldn't find Photo with ID=moderate.
Am I building this the correct way, or does moderate need to have its own separate controller and view? Seems silly to me for that to be the case. Is this just something I need to configure in my routes?
UPDATE:
I've added this to my routes:
resources :photos do
resources :comments
collection do
get 'moderate'
end
end
Still getting the same Couldn't find Photo with ID=moderate message when I go to /photos/moderate...
UPDATE:
Crap! Just figured out the problem. I had a before_filter running that needed to ignore the moderate action... It's now working fine. Sorry for the trouble.
You can add a further restful action. Take a look at the docs
So you're trying to split out the concern of being able to edit and view photos?
If you wanted to keep your actions RESTful, you could create a "moderate" namespace and put all the actions that require authentication for photos in that namespace.
For instance,
#routes.rb
namespace :moderate do
resources :photos # will create paths like '/moderate/photos/', '/moderate/photos/1'
end
#controllers/moderate/photos_controller.rb
class Moderate::PhotosController < ActionController
before_filter :authorize_moderator!
#your standard restful actions like 'index', 'show', 'edit, 'update' would go in here.
end
which allows me to load URLs like
/photos
/photos/2
/photos/2/edit
Edit allows the user to change the image, but I want a different kind of edit for permission type stuff specific to the app I'm building, which would look like:
/photos/2/updatesettings
So in the photos controller I added "def updatesettings ...."
And in the routes I added:
resources :photos do
collection do
get 'updatesettings'
end
end
But I'm getting an error: "Routing Error No route matches"
Suggestions? thanks
What you have in your routes file will match the url '/photos/updatesettings'
The only way I know how to do what you want to do is:
match "photos/:id/updatesettings" => "photos#updatesettings"
In the second part of that line, photos is telling it to look in the photos controller, and #updatesettings is telling it the method to call.
You would put this outside of resources :photos, so your code would be
resources :photos
match "photos/:id/updatesettings" => "photos#updatesettings"
There is a high chance you're using a form to update these settings, am I right?*
In which case you want to do post 'updatesettings' in your routes file, not get. This will define a route that responds to POST requests, vs one that only responds to GET requests. If you want both then use a get and a post line in your routes file.
* Most of the time, yes I am.