I have a TextsController, each Text can be of a different (fixed) type.
Let's say I have a "book" type. I want to create a resource route to show a text, and I want the route to look like this:
/book/my-book
Another type, "manual" for instance, should lead to using the following URL:
/manual/rtfm
Well, I have RTFM and I can't get it to work the way I thought it should work.
Here's what I've tried:
scope '/:text_type' do
resources :texts, only: :show
end
rake routes shows me the following route spec:
text GET /:text_type/texts/:id(.:format) texts#show
I don't get why the static 'texts' segment should be there?
So I tried including an empty path option:
scope '/:text_type', path: '' do
resources :texts, only: :show
end
Which doesn't change anything, I guess because (from source) my first argument to scope actually overrides any value given to path.
The only route setup that got me what I'm looking for is this:
scope '/:text_type' do
resources :texts, only: :show, path: ''
end
It seems to completely defeat the purpose of scope which is to "[scope] a set of routes to the given default options".
Why wouldn't any of the previous forms actually override path for my resources call?
Looks like a bug to me?
So should I file a bug report, or will you hit me hard on the head with the f* manual? ^^
First of all the scoping thing. Routes with scope are for namespacing routes, as you would do for admin areas. So the mentioned routes are generated correctly and there is no bug (and no bug report needed). You can read more details about namespacing at Controller Namespaces and Routing.
You could slug the parameters yourself by following 'Creating Vanity URLs in Rails'
or use the friendly_id gem like the Railscast advises.
Though I would stick to ids as long as I could for several reasons.
What's the best approach in Rails 4 to define routes from multiple files? Should I be creating them and using some kind of include mechanism from routes.rb, or is there something else I should be doing?
I'm aware of a new feature in Rails 4 called concerns, although they seem unrelated to what I'm trying to do. I don't want to modify existing routes, I just want to split my definitions up into multiple files to prevent routes.rb from getting too big.
In your application.rb file:
routes = Dir[Rails.root.join("config/routes/*.rb")] + config.paths['config/routes.rb']
config.paths['config/routes.rb'] = routes
You can define routes in any file under "config/routes" as in:
# config/routes/api_routes.rb
Rails.application.routes.draw do
namespace :api do
resources :posts
end
end
In Rails 4 it looks like the key on config.paths changed from 'config/routes' to 'config/routes.rb'
You should keep them all in one file and namespace anything you need to separate.
YourApp::Application.routes.draw do
namespace :api do
resources :your_model
end
end
Then you put the api controllers in the directory controllers/api/your_model_controller.rb
I've done this for API's before and never had a problem, but you should require some kind of validation for the api namespace
I'm currently writing a rails app that has your regular resource like objects. However I would like to make my resources syncable. My web application uses web offline storage to cache results from the server (user's cannot modify data on server making syncing easier). When I fetch from the server, it returns a hash response like:
{
:new => [...]
:updated => [...]
:deleted => [...]
}
This is all well and good until I want to have a regular fetch method that doesn't do any sort of syncing and simply return an array of models
Now my question is I want to create a method in my routes.rb file that sets up routes so that I have a route to synced_index and index. Ideally, I'd be able to do something like this:
synced_resources :plans
And then all of the regular resource routes would be created plus a few extra ones like synced_index. Any ideas on how to best do this?
Note: I do know that you can modify resources with do...end syntax but I'd like to abstract that out into a function since I'd have to do it to a lot of models.
You can easily add more verbs to a restful route:
resources :plans do
get 'synced_index', on: :collection
end
Check the guides for more information on this.
If you have several routes that are similar to this, then sure, you can add a 'synced_resources' helper:
def synced_resources(*res)
res.each do |r|
resources(r) do
get 'synced_index', on: :collection
end
end
end
Wrap above method in a module to be included in ActionDispatch::Routing::Mapper.
I'm trying to version my API like Stripe has. Below is given the latest API version is 2.
/api/users returns a 301 to /api/v2/users
/api/v1/users returns a 200 of users index at version 1
/api/v3/users returns a 301 to /api/v2/users
/api/asdf/users returns a 301 to /api/v2/users
So that basically anything that doesn't specify the version links to the latest unless the specified version exists then redirect to it.
This is what I have so far:
scope 'api', :format => :json do
scope 'v:api_version', :api_version => /[12]/ do
resources :users
end
match '/*path', :to => redirect { |params| "/api/v2/#{params[:path]}" }
end
The original form of this answer is wildly different, and can be found here. Just proof that there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I've updated the answer since to use namespaces and to use 301 redirects -- rather than the default of 302. Thanks to pixeltrix and Bo Jeanes for the prompting on those things.
You might want to wear a really strong helmet because this is going to blow your mind.
The Rails 3 routing API is super wicked. To write the routes for your API, as per your requirements above, you need just this:
namespace :api do
namespace :v1 do
resources :users
end
namespace :v2 do
resources :users
end
match 'v:api/*path', :to => redirect("/api/v2/%{path}")
match '*path', :to => redirect("/api/v2/%{path}")
end
If your mind is still intact after this point, let me explain.
First, we call namespace which is super handy for when you want a bunch of routes scoped to a specific path and module that are similarly named. In this case, we want all routes inside the block for our namespace to be scoped to controllers within the Api module and all requests to paths inside this route will be prefixed with api. Requests such as /api/v2/users, ya know?
Inside the namespace, we define two more namespaces (woah!). This time we're defining the "v1" namespace, so all routes for the controllers here will be inside the V1 module inside the Api module: Api::V1. By defining resources :users inside this route, the controller will be located at Api::V1::UsersController. This is version 1, and you get there by making requests like /api/v1/users.
Version 2 is only a tiny bit different. Instead of the controller serving it being at Api::V1::UsersController, it's now at Api::V2::UsersController. You get there by making requests like /api/v2/users.
Next, a match is used. This will match all API routes that go to things like /api/v3/users.
This is the part I had to look up. The :to => option allows you to specify that a specific request should be redirected somewhere else -- I knew that much -- but I didn't know how to get it to redirect to somewhere else and pass in a piece of the original request along with it.
To do this, we call the redirect method and pass it a string with a special-interpolated %{path} parameter. When a request comes in that matches this final match, it will interpolate the path parameter into the location of %{path} inside the string and redirect the user to where they need to go.
Finally, we use another match to route all remaining paths prefixed with /api and redirect them to /api/v2/%{path}. This means requests like /api/users will go to /api/v2/users.
I couldn't figure out how to get /api/asdf/users to match, because how do you determine if that is supposed to be a request to /api/<resource>/<identifier> or /api/<version>/<resource>?
A couple of things to add:
Your redirect match isn't going to work for certain routes - the *api param is greedy and will swallow up everything, e.g. /api/asdf/users/1 will redirect to /api/v2/1. You'd be better off using a regular param like :api. Admittedly it won't match cases like /api/asdf/asdf/users/1 but if you have nested resources in your api it's a better solution.
Ryan WHY U NO LIKE namespace? :-), e.g:
current_api_routes = lambda do
resources :users
end
namespace :api do
scope :module => :v2, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v2, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v1, ¤t_api_routes
match ":api/*path", :to => redirect("/api/v2/%{path}")
end
Which has the added benefit of versioned and generic named routes. One additional note - the convention when using :module is to use underscore notation, e.g: api/v1 not 'Api::V1'. At one point the latter didn't work but I believe it was fixed in Rails 3.1.
Also, when you release v3 of your API the routes would be updated like this:
current_api_routes = lambda do
resources :users
end
namespace :api do
scope :module => :v3, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v3, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v2, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v1, ¤t_api_routes
match ":api/*path", :to => redirect("/api/v3/%{path}")
end
Of course it's likely that your API has different routes between versions in which case you can do this:
current_api_routes = lambda do
# Define latest API
end
namespace :api do
scope :module => :v3, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v3, ¤t_api_routes
namespace :v2 do
# Define API v2 routes
end
namespace :v1 do
# Define API v1 routes
end
match ":api/*path", :to => redirect("/api/v3/%{path}")
end
If at all possible, I would suggest rethinking your urls so that the version isn't in the url, but is put into the accepts header. This stack overflow answer goes into it well:
Best practices for API versioning?
and this link shows exactly how to do that with rails routing:
http://freelancing-gods.com/posts/versioning_your_ap_is
I'm not a big fan of versioning by routes. We built VersionCake to support an easier form of API versioning.
By including the API version number in the filename of each of our respective views (jbuilder, RABL, etc), we keep the versioning unobtrusive and allow for easy degradation to support backwards compatibility (e.g. if v5 of the view doesn't exist, we render v4 of the view).
I'm not sure why you want to redirect to a specific version if a version isn't explicitly requested. Seems like you simply want to define a default version that gets served up if no version is explicitly requested. I also agree with David Bock that keeping versions out of the URL structure is a cleaner way to support versioning.
Shameless plug: Versionist supports these use cases (and more).
https://github.com/bploetz/versionist
Implemented this today and found what I believe to be the 'right way' on RailsCasts - REST API Versioning. So simple. So maintainable. So effective.
Add lib/api_constraints.rb (don't even have to change vnd.example.)
class ApiConstraints
def initialize(options)
#version = options[:version]
#default = options[:default]
end
def matches?(req)
#default || req.headers['Accept'].include?("application/vnd.example.v#{#version}")
end
end
Setup config/routes.rb like so
require 'api_constraints'
Rails.application.routes.draw do
# Squads API
namespace :api do
# ApiConstaints is a lib file to allow default API versions,
# this will help prevent having to change link names from /api/v1/squads to /api/squads, better maintainability
scope module: :v1, constraints: ApiConstraints.new(version:1, default: true) do
resources :squads do
# my stuff was here
end
end
end
resources :squads
root to: 'site#index'
Edit your controller (ie /controllers/api/v1/squads_controller.rb)
module Api
module V1
class SquadsController < BaseController
# my stuff was here
end
end
end
Then you can change all links in your app from /api/v1/squads to /api/squads and you can EASILY implement new api versions without even having to change links
Ryan Bigg answer worked for me.
If you also want to keep query parameters through the redirect, you can do it like this:
match "*path", to: redirect{ |params, request| "/api/v2/#{params[:path]}?#{request.query_string}" }
I have a community_users model that I route in the following way:
resources :communities do
resources :users
end
This creates the route /communities/:id/users/.
I'd like to configure this route so that only the name of the community with the corresponding :id is shown.
In other words, if a community has an id of '1' and the name 'rails-lovers' - the route would read:
/rails-lovers
and not:
/communities/1/users/
You might want to check out the gem friendly_id
That will give you the clean URLs you are looking for.
I'm not quite sure if this is what you're looking for, but:
One option would be to create the route
match ':community_name' => 'users#show_users_for_community'
and then in the UsersController have
def show_users_for_community
#community = Community.find_by_name(params[:community_name])
<do what you need to do here>
end
I'm not sure if that route will match too many URLs or not -- it's a very general route. So if you do this, maybe put it low down in your routes file.