I have strange question. I want in my helper to have array of paths that are available for specific resource.For example, if we have a model Comment I want to have an array which will have the following elements: [new_comment_path, comments_path] etc. Is this possible to do?
Edit:
I build left side menu in rails. It will work like tree menu. I don't want to use external plugins. Only thing that i must do is to have a all paths for my models.
You can do
Rails.application.routes.routes.map{|x| x.name}.reject{|x| x.blank?}
Which will get all named routes. I'm not sure if there is a way of just getting routes for one resource though
Related
I have a model Navigation that has a polymorphic target. That target can be a Page, an ExternalLink, or a Plugin. Each of these targets has different attributes (page has content, title, external link has title, url, plugin has its own polymorphic relations.
I'm building a little form to add a Navigation link, and I want to give my users the option to select an existing one of these relations (which is easy enough, just a grouped collection select), but I also would like to let them select a 'New' option for each of these target models.
The question is -- how do I include it in the same form?
I could make a form object, but that feels like the last-resort option. I know I can accept nested attributes for target, but I don't know how to do that with a selection form as well. I know I could do some js hackery to add or remove form elements on selecting or not selecting the 'new' options.
All of these don't feel railsey. This problem feels like a not-uncommon issue, and I imagine this is a solved problem that I'm trying to reinvent the wheel for. What option am I missing? What is the rails way to make this?
You may want to look at the Cocoon gem, will handle a lot of the "js hackery" you alluded to.
This post shows how to use Cocoon to render the appropriate fields for (in your case) each of the possible target classes.
Whether you have a separate button for each target class is up to you.
I think you should use globalid gem for this.
Here is a good article describing how it works.
GlobalID helps you uniquely identify your models. E.g. gid://Company/1 and gid://Employee/1 has the same IDs, but different GlobalIDs. You can actually find model simply by using GlobalID::Locator:
GlobalID::Locator.locate gid_value
This should make simple combo-boxes easily programmable.
I seek some guidedence here ... ( I'm not sure if this is the best title )
At the moment I prepend a "server name" to the url like this:
server10.example.com
This works fine, except that I need to handle all the subdomains on the IIS and I'm not sure google are happy about jumping around from sub to sub to sub, when it seems the links to the other servers.
I'm kind a hoping for a nice way to archive this wioth asp.net mvc.
Most pages are related to a "server" ... there are however a few info pages, contact, home that dont really need a valid "server" name ... but could just be "na" for not available, but the name need to be maintained, if there is already a selected server, when a user are keeps browsing the site. This needs to be as transparent as possible when I need to create the links to the diffenrent pages.
I could extend the Html Action() extensien to automatically add the selected "server" from the previusly request to the page.
In the format:
/{serverParameter}/{controller}/{action}/{parameterInfo}
And if no server is selected, just add "na" as the {server} placeholder.
I'm not sure if more information is needed, but please let me know if ...
I tired of extracting the selected server from the domain part and the other way also seems better, I just can't think of a good way to structure this ...
Updated
90% of all the pages are about a server that the user select at some point. Could be server10, server9, server20 ... just a name. I want to maintain that information across all pages, after the users has selected it or else I just want it to be f.ex: "empty".
I mostly looking for an easy way of doing this or an alternative ... atm I'm prepending the serverParamter to the url so it ends up being: "serverParameter.example.com".
I want to end up with something like
http://example.com/{server}/{controller}/{action}
instread of
http://{server}.example.com/{controller}/{action}
If I understand your question correctly, you just wish to group different collections of content together above the controller/action level. If that's the case, have you considered using ASP.NET MVC areas?
Just right-click on your project, and choose Add -> Area.... Give it a name (what you're calling "server"), and then you can add content, your own controllers, actions, etc. Under this area. You will automatically be able to access it via /AreaName/Controller/Action/etc.
I went with the already impemented routing in ASP.NET MVC.
{server}/{controller}/{action}
When creating the links it takes the set value for {server} and places the value when generating URL's, so I only need to supply controller and action in the #Html.Action helper method ... this could not have been more easy.
I'm not sure why I did not think about this. One just gotta love routing.
I'm building a site that has items, with each item having a page, for example:
website.com/book/123
website.com/film/456
website.com/game/789
Each item can have multiple sub (and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub) pages, for example a book could have a blurb, a film could have a gallery and a game could also have a gallery.
My question is, does any sort of standard or best practice exist around structuring the URLs for pages associated with an item? For example:
website.com/film/456/gallery
Where the sub page comes after the item, or:
website.com/film/gallery/456/
where the item is the very last part of the URL.
Does anyone have any information on why which approach is best or if any web standard exists? It seems an obvious thing but I'm struggling to decide, I can think of pros and cons for each approach -- although I'm leaning towards the former option because it means the following user path would match the URL:
load website.com -> click "films" (website.com/films)-> click "a film" (website.com/film/123) -> click gallery (website.com/film/123/gallery)
but something about it seems... off, inconsistent maybe.
You are correct that the former URL is "better" and is more widely deployed. I don't think you would find this documented in any standard; it is rather more of a convention. Most articles and books covering REST do it that way.
The reason for this is, as you say, that the path components in the URL match the structure of resources and sub-resources. In particular, all of the following should be valid URLs:
website.com/
website.com/books
website.com/books/123
In particular, note that it is books/123, not book/123 like you have. I have seen the singular but IMHO the plural is better.
For the URL /books
a GET gets all books, but you can restrict the books with query parameters, e.g. /books?author=alice
a POST adds a new book (with a server-generated id).
For the URL /books/123
a GET gets that particular book
a PUT replaces the book with that id (or adds a book with that client-generated id)
Now if a book has blurbs and the blurbs are unique only to a particular book then you will add the following URLs:
website.com/books/123/blurbs
website.com/books/123/blurbs/72
You can do the same for films and galleries, provided each gallery belonged to a single film. But if galleries existed for multiple films, then you would make /galleries a top-level URL. Navigating from a film to a gallery would still be fine. You wouldn't have a structured URL. You would instead get all galleries containing pictures from film 456 via a GET to
website.com/galleries?film=456
The general rule is that if you have an ownership relation for the subresources you can use structured urls, but if there is a looser relationship among top-level items, query parameters are fine. Don't fall into the common misconception that RESTful URLs don't have query parameters; they do. :)
Now finally, to directly answer your question: website.com/films/galleries/456 is not a good URL IMHO because `website.com/films/galleries/ is not very useful. In fact I think it is rather ugly. What would it mean? All galleries? If so, it should be website.com/galleries.
Again I don't think this is standardized anywhere, but it feels very common and conventional.
I have a very simple Rails application that performs regular CRUD operations on an object (Path), this all fits nicely in the REST philosophy of Rails. Now however, I need to add a "Duplicate" feature (i.e. create new path from existing path). I have added it as an (RESTfull) action in my path_controller, so far so good (maybe not completely in line with the REST philosophy but I am not a purist).
Now I want to extend the functionality so that the users can choose to either create a completely new path from an existing one or copy the existing path to another, already existing path (duplicating its children). This means I am going to need a few extra Views:
one that allows them to pick Option 1 (Create New Object) or Option 2 (Duplicate to existing Object).
If they choose Option 2, I need another View that lets them then pick the path they want to copy to.
Each of these views needs a corresponding action, and it is here that I am struggling as to where this all fits in REST.
This is a fairly simple example but as my UIs get more complex, I always run into this issue: How do I make my actions I need for my UI fit in REST controllers?
Just add a new collection route to your resource:
resources :paths do
collection do
get :duplicate
end
end
and add a duplicate method to your paths controller and views for it...
now you can access and address specifi routes for your users choice.
Just wondering if anyone has advice on tagging items to specific routes. For example, if I have 2 items, they're of the same model type however I want one of the items to have a route.
"folder1/folder2/{ItemName}"
and the other to have a route
"folder3/folder4/{ItemName}"
So I want to specify that item one is only viewable through route 1, and item2 is only viewable through route 2. Is this possible?
Hope that makes sense, basically I just want to be able to specify which route an object will use, thanks for any help.
I found what I was looking for, check out this link