In Rails, the standard routing to objects is nested to a Model's name, example.com/model/object_id.
Is it anyhow possible to access objects without the Model part, so example.com/object_id shadowly accesses example.com/model/object_id?
Rails includes routes like you said. You can add constraints to determine object_id is integer or string.
get '/:id', to: 'articles#show', constraints: { id: /^\d/ }
This is for more information about routes constraint.
What you are first describing are the RESTful routes provided by the resources template in the rails router.
You can define different routes in the config/routes.rb file.
And for resources, you can provide a path option, where you can define a path.
resources :models, path: "/"
Will provide models resources at the route path. So a GET request to "/" would fire the "models#index" action and "/1/edit" would delegate to "models#edit"
Related
I have a route that looks like this:
get '/sell/:ticker', to: 'sell#new', as: 'sell'
That does what I want, which is allows get requests to myapp.com/sell/ABC.
I have another route, resources :stocks that I would also like to be able to specify for it to use /:ticker, rather than /:id in all the routes.
Is there some way for me to modify the resources helper to use \:ticker rather than \:id, without having to write every route individually?
I believe you should be able to use the param in routes file as,
resources :stocks, param: :ticker
I'm building a "Brand personality" tool that gives you a report based on the text you share on social media.
I have a model PersonalityReport and in routes I have resources :personality_reports.
A new feature is to offer a "diff" between two reports and I'm trying to work out the most "guessable" way to model this in routes.
Ideally I'd like GET /personality_reports/:personality_report_id/diff/:id or something along those lines, and while I could simply put that into routes as a GET route, is there a more Railsy way of specifying a route using the resources / collections style so that my routes.rb file is more easy to understand?
The 'neatest' way can think of is:
resources :personality_reports, param: 'personality_report' do
member do
get 'diff/:id', to: 'personality_reports#action', as: 'diff_route'
end
end
Where obviously to: is your controller#action, and as: is the name of your route. After running rake routes you will see this generates:
diff_route_personality_report GET /personality_reports/:personality_report_id/diff/:id(.:format) personality_reports#action
I think whatever you mentioned is good enough,
resources : personality_reports do
resources :diffs, only: [:show]
end
So, routes like below,
personality_report_diff GET /personality_reports/:personality_report_id/diffs/:id(.:format) diffs#show
NOTE: You can also make diff route in singular resource :diff if you want to make it as singular resource.
I have a model with uncountable name - class Equipment and in this article (https://markembling.info/2011/06/uncountable-nouns-rails-3-resource-routing) I found that in such cases we get into problems while trying to get model's index path. So article provides tips how to use inflection rules. However, I believe word 'Equipment', just like 'person' is already understood by Rails and I dont even need to define inflection rule, since I still get this path:
equipment_index GET /equipment(.:format) equipment#index
But, for some reason, after I navigate to localhost:3000/equipment_index, I get
No route matches [GET] "/equipment_index"
All other paths works (like localhost:3000/equipment).
Any ideas whats going on..?
p.s. please do not write how to add a custom path. I hope to solve this in the Rails way - convention over configuration. Thanks.
routes:
equipment_index GET /equipment(.:format) equipment#index
POST /equipment(.:format) equipment#create
new_equipment GET /equipment/new(.:format) equipment#new
edit_equipment GET /equipment/:id/edit(.:format) equipment#edit
equipment GET /equipment/:id(.:format) equipment#show
PATCH /equipment/:id(.:format) equipment#update
PUT /equipment/:id(.:format) equipment#update
DELETE /equipment/:id(.:format) equipment#destroy
routes.rb:
resources :users do
member do
get 'generate_raport'
end
end
resources :client_users
resources :clients
devise_for :users, skip: [:registrations]
resources :equipment
root to: 'static#homepage'
equipment_index is a named route, not a url string. The url string that corresponds to this named route is in this part:
GET /equipment(.:format)
When you say:
equipment_index GET /equipment(.:format) equipment#index
you are really saying that equipment_index is a named route (an alias so to say) for the actual url route localhost:3000/equipment. The last part that says:
equipment#index
just says that your request will be routed through the equipment controller and the corresponding index action.
Solution
You can simply navigate to localhost:3000/equipment to get to the index page for your equipment controller.
For example, you would link to this page using a rails link_to helper and the named route discussed above like this:
link_to "My index path", equipment_index_path
Follow up on comments
change add the following line to your routes.rb file directly after the line that contains resources :equipment. It would now look like:
resources :equipment
get 'equipment', to: 'equipment#index', as: 'equipment'
This is convention over configuration!
You're simply reading the output of rake routes wrong or have the wrong expectations about how its supposed to work. The first column is just the name of the route which is primarily used for creating path helpers. The actual paths are in the third column*.
equipment_index_path() # /equipment
equipment_path(1) # /equipment/1
equipment_path() # error due to missing id param
Since equipment is an uncountable noun Rails cleverly avoids an issue where the generated path helpers would be ambiguous - equipment_path could potentially lead to either the index action or the show action. Regular countable nouns don't have this issue so the _index postfix is not usually needed.
# no ambiguity
cats_path() # /cats
cat_path(1) # /cats/1
While you could argue that rails in that case should use the presence of the id param to differentiate that is not how its built and could mask bugs where you pass nil instead of a record.
I am about to migrate my rails 3 application to rails 4.
There are some additional routes on my ressources that make some problems.
I get an error message for this lines in my route file:
resources :teams do
...
get 'apply' => 'teams#apply_membership', as: :apply_membership
post 'apply' => 'teams#apply_membership_save', as: :apply_membership
...
This is the generated error message
You may have defined two routes with the same name using the `:as` option, or you may be overriding a route already defined by a resource with the same naming. For the latter, you can restrict the routes created with `resources` as explained here:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#restricting-the-routes-created
In rails3 it was possible to define a get and a post route using the same alias and routing them to different controler methods.
Can I do this in rails4, too?
And if yes, how does it have to look like in my route file?
You can not take two route name with same name. but you have done it. so please change,
get 'apply' => 'teams#apply_membership', as: :apply_membership
post 'apply' => 'teams#apply_membership_save', as: :update_membership
Take a look here for rails routings. http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html
Given a User resource, it goes like this
/user/:shortname
But how can the controller name be removed to get just
/:shortname
How can I declare this in routes.rb while keeping all CRUD functionality instant?
Updated: After reading this I'm moving to Sinatra over Rails to handle this API-like design better.
Define a custom match:
match ':shortname' => 'users#action'
Replace action in users#action with the name of the action that is supposed to receive the request. Just remember to place it in the appropriate order in your routes file. Rails looks at each line of your routes file starting at the top and selects the first matching route. ':shortname' would match any first-level path, including /users! So put it below any routes using a first-level path, which would include all of your resource routes. Here's an example:
resources :users
resources :posts
match '/blog' => 'posts#index'
match ':shortname' => 'users#action'
In routes, you should be able to do something like
resource :users, :path => '/:shortname'
Try that out and rake routes to see if that comes out as expected.