I have a model named client and another model called client_preference. The relationship between them is one client has many client_preferences.
Now I want to create methods for updating and deleting client_preferences. For that I generate the routes as:
map.resources :clients do |client|
client.resources :client_preferences, only: [:edit, :update, :destroy]
end
and I get the following named routes:
edit_client_client_preference GET /clients/:client_id/client_preferences/:id/edit(.:format) {:controller=>"client_preferences", :action=>"edit"}
client_client_preference PUT /clients/:client_id/client_preferences/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"client_preferences", :action=>"update"}
DELETE /clients/:client_id/client_preferences/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"client_preferences", :action=>"destroy"}
Now, I want to customize the routes names from client_client_preference to client_preference and similarly for other routes generated so that the client is word not repeated twice in the path names generated. Is there a way to do that or do I need to manually define the routes?
Any help or pointers will be highly helpful.
Using the :as option should allow for creating cleaner named helpers:
map.resources :clients do |client|
client.resources :client_preferences, only: [:edit, :update, :destroy], as: 'preference'
end
This should now map to client_preference.
Hope it helps!
There is a keyword :as which helps you to create customized path names in Rails.
Also There is existing answer to this question: Rails 3 nested resources short name?
Related
I have a nested resources:
resources :topic do
resource :fruits, only: [:edit, :update]
end
I want the browser url to be /topic/:topic_id/fruits(.:format) (without /edit) instead of /topic/:topic_id/fruits/edit(.:format)
In my action controller I see I have these routes
GET /topic/:topic_id/fruits/edit
fruits#edit
PATCH /topic/:topic_id/fruits/
fruits#update
PUT /topic/:topic_id/fruits/
fruits#update
what you are looking for is called a member route and it is well explained here
difference between collection route and member route in ruby on rails?
I would like my REST API to have several routes, such as:
GET /posts/
GET /posts/1
POST /posts
GET /users/
GET /users/1
GET /users/1/posts
POST /users/1/posts
Is it possible to reuse the same controller for those nested routes under the users collection?
It looks like you want nested routes. Try this is your config/routes.rb
resources :posts
resources :users do
resources :posts
end
This has more info. You could also use match or post and get verb methods individually. There are also many options for nested routes.
https://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html.
ALTERNATIVELY
in config/routes.rb:
get 'users/:id/posts', to: 'users#posts'
and in controllers/users_controller.rb
before_action :set_user, only: [:users_posts, :show, :edit, :update, :destroy]
...
def posts
#posts = #user.posts
end
With the second option you can KISS by keeping POST/PATCH/UPDATE/DESTROY at their native home like /posts and /posts/42. Just treat :user_id as a form variable in that case, with whatever extra validation you might need, perhaps referencing a session var.
LASTLY
You can actually put this in your config/routes.rb. But now you're probably writing new forms because :user_id is a route parameter. I'd file that under extra complexity. Maybe it fits your situation though.
post 'users/:id/posts', to: 'users#posts_create'
Is there a way to use resource routing instead of writing the routes one by one if my methods for which the default expects parameters don't use parameters?
For example, if I had a routes file like below, the expected path for the update method would be like this: /cats/:id (docs)
# routes.rb
Rails.application.routes.draw do
resources :cats, only: [:create, :update]
end
However, I don't require any params for my update method, meaning the path should be /cats.
I know there's a way to rename the params and not use :id, but I didn't find anything on disabling them. I tried adding param: nil to the end of the line but it didn't work.
As I wrote initially, I know this can be done if I write the routes one by one like below. My question is whether I can use resources to do it. Thank you!
# routes.rb
Rails.application.routes.draw do
post 'cats', to: 'cats#create'
put 'cats', to: 'cats#update'
end
This is exactly the use case for singular resources. Quote from the Rails Guides:
Sometimes, you have a resource that clients always look up without referencing an ID. For example, you would like /profile to always show the profile of the currently logged in user.
Change our routing to
resource :cats, only: [:create, :update]
And the following routes will be created:
cats PATCH /cats(.:format) cats#update
PUT /cats(.:format) cats#update
POST /cats(.:format) cats#create
As far as I know, there is not, resource is just a helper to create the standard verb-based CRUD routes, if you want custom routes you need to define your update route the way you did in your second example, of course, you can still use resource for your create route and just pass only: :create.
My routes.rb file looks like:
resources :contents, only: [:show]
get 'contents/by_hardware', to: 'contents#show_by_hardware'
With this setup I am not able to access the contents/by_hardware route.
But if I setup my routes.rb file in a different order, everthing works.
get 'contents/by_hardware', to: 'contents#show_by_hardware'
resources :contents, only: [:show]
Is the order in the routes.rb file important?
Yes, order matters very much.
It works like this: resources :contents, only: [:show] creates this route
content GET /contents/:id(.:format) contents#show
So when you request, for example, http://localhost:3000/contents/by_hardware, it is this route that matches this url. It invokes ContentsController#show action with params {'id' => "by_hardware"}. Your custom action is not considered, because matching route is already found.
Yes, order does matter. Instead of defining routes for the same controller at two different places, I would recommend you to define routes for the above scenario this way
resources :contents, only: [:show] do
get :show_by_hardware, on: :collection, path: :by_hardware
end
Hope that helps!
Yes it is important, the routes will be matched from top to bottom so you can move your route get 'contents/by_hardware', to: 'contents#show_by_hardware' above resource to fix your problem
yes. router will match first route from the top
I am having issues getting my helper method names to work properly, any suggestions would be great:
#config/routes.rb
resources :junkie, only: [:show, :index, :destroy], as: :junkie do
get :merge, on: :collection
end
So I was having issues because I the singular form of junkies is junky, but when I make this change and look at the routes it changes the #merge helper to:
merge_junkie_index GET /junkies/merge(.:format) junkies#merge
Is there any way to change this to just merge_junkie? I tried removing it from the resource black and using the match syntax: get "junkies/merge" => "junkies#merge", as: :junkie but for some odd reason this directed me to the show method even though the route was right.
The solution is a ugly one but it works, since the show route is the only one that is affected by the as: :junkie you can break it out put the merge route in a separate block. The ordering of the resource also matters for some reason, if you do not put the merge first, it will interpret the url /junkie/merge/ as a id and hit the show action. So it should look like this in your routes file:
resources :junkies, only: [:index] do
get :merge, on: :collection
end
resources :junkies, only: [:show, :destroy], as: :junkie