I have to modify the routes file in order to have SEO improvement.
This is my context, a rails backend generate a JSON feed with the route's name in, I have to read it and change the default name.
For example, I have this:
get '/people' => 'people#show', as: :people
and I'd like to change /people in some value read from my JSON feed.
I created a class to get the JSON object in my app
class JSONDatabase
def initialize(kind_of_site)
#kind_of_site = kind_of_site
end
def fetch_database_remote(url)
JSON.parse(open(url).read)
end
end
but how can i access it in routes file?
Thank you
You don't necessarily need to modify your application's routes. What you can do is define a wild card route that leads to a unique controller where you read the updated route. This approach is kind of hackish but gives you the unlimited routes you need without modifying the routes.
Your config/routes.rb file would look something like this:
resources :defined_models
root to: 'controller#action'
# At last we define the wildcard route
get '/:route' => 'routing_controller#routing_action'
Then, at this routing action we can do the job of seeing if this route (now defined in the params[:route] variable) corresponds to the modified one. Just remember to redirect to a 404 if the route given is not defined, since with this approach you loose the Rails default way of dealing with undefined routes.
Related
I have a controller, clients_controller, with corresponding index, show, edit, delete, new & form views. Is there a way to create a new view like clients/prospects.html.erb that acts the same way as clients/index.html.erb, except is routed at clients/prospects/?
I've tried this:
match '/clients/prospects' => 'clients#prospects'
And some other things in routes.rb, but of course get the error "Couldn't find Client with id=prospects".
The goal here is basically to have a prospects view and a clients view, and by simply switching the hidden field to a 1, it (in the user's mind) turns a prospect into a client (it's a CRM-like app).
There's a couple of things you need to do. First you need to put the your custom route before any generic route. Otherwise Rails assumes the word "prospects" is an id for the show action. Example:
get '/clients/prospects' => 'clients#prospects' # or match for older Rails versions
resources :clients
Also you need to copy / paste the index method in your ClientsController and name it prospects. Example:
class ClientsController < ApplicationController
def index
#clients = Client.where(prospect: false)
end
def prospects
#prospects = Client.where(prospect: true)
end
end
Lastly, you need to copy the index.html.erb view and name the copy prospects.html.erb. In the example above you would have to work with the #prospects instance variable.
Create a new action in clients controller named prospects. And then define a collection route in routes.rb for it as either resource full way. Or u directly use match as you were doing.
What you're doing is not wrong (although I'd change match to get, otherwise POST and DELETE requests to that url will also render your prospects view). Presumably you have
resources :clients
in your routes file? If so, what you have will probably work if you just move the line you quoted above the resources declaration -- the problem is that /clients/prospects matches the show route for the clients resource, so if it's defined first then that's the route that gets matched.
However, there's a more idiomatic way to define this route
resources :clients do
collection do
get :prospects
end
end
See Rails Routing documentation for more
Also see migu's answer for what else needs to be done once the url is being routed correctly (though there are other things you can do -- if you the two views are similar enough, you can reuse the view template, for example).
Here's my routes file
Dumb::Application.routes.draw do
# an auto-named route
get '/a/b', to: 'a#b'
# apparently not auto-named???
get '/a/z/:something', to: 'a#z'
end
Here's output of rake routes
a_b GET /a/b(.:format) a#b
GET /a/z/:something(.:format) a#z
Wow that sucks! At least for consistency's sake. If I change the a#z route to
get '/a/z/:something', to: 'a#z', as: "a_z"
rake routes will display
a_b GET /a/b(.:format) a#b
a_z GET /a/z/:something(.:format) a#z
Ok that's good, but having to name the route like that is annoying.
Is this the only solution?
My guess is that Rails can't assign a name to your route because it does not understand it. Usually, you will want to write your route as such :
/a/:id/b/:id # instead of /a/b/:id which Rails does not understand.
Rails maps a to a controller with a model instance with id :id and b to another controller with another model instance with id :id.
/a/b/:id does not refer to anything in terms of Rails convention.
Getting GET /a/b named to a_b was just a guess Rails made, but it can't work out GET /a/z/:something. What would it be? a_z_something?
I'm trying to access a resource in my rails app that I want to populate with information based on the variable in the URL. Given the URL:
someapp.com/resources/variable/resource
I would like to pass the variable to Rails to add elements to resource. Is there any quick re-routing way of achieving this? Or is it insanely complicated?
Cheers!
No part of this should be "insanely complicated", but it's not very clear what you're trying to accomplish.
You could try adding a route with a variable segment:
get "/resources/:variable/resource" => "controller#action"
Then, in your controller, access params[:variable].
If your already have a resource defined, you can add an additional "member" route via the following:
resource :resources do
get :resource, on: member
# or
member do
get :resource
end
end
Either of the previous will allow your controller to route /resources/:resource_id/resource to the resources controller's resource action.
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.
I have a set of routes that are generated dynamically at runtime, but that all point to the same controller i.e.
map.resources :authors, :controller => 'main'
map.resources :books, :controller => 'main'
These all work fine, producing routes like /authors/1, /books, /books/55, etc and then all end up being processed by the 'main' controller.
However, I can't seem to find how to get the name of the resource in the controller i.e. in the index action when the URL is /authors or /books I'd like to be able to determine which resource it is, i.e. Author or Book
I cannot use separate controllers for this.
Is this at all possible ?
EDIT: complete change of answer because it was waaay off.
So because it changes the params that you see in your action you'll have to get at the actual uri. It is really just as simple as what Terry suggested.
def index
if request.request_uri =~ /books/
#...
else
# if it is a author
end
end
This compares the request uri (the part that would be after localhost:3000) to books and so you can see what the user has requested.
I don't think there's anything like a .resource method, but you could look at request.request_uri, which in your case would return things like /authors or /books, and could act accordingly.
See the "Defaults routes and default parameters" section of the ActionController::Routing documentation. You can program into your routes arbitrary extra parameters you would like sent to your controller.
Looking at the request URI will force you to keep routes and controllers in sync, which will make your code more fragile and less easily re-used. Avoid if you possibly can.