As well explained in the Rails Guide on Routing, a resourceful route declaration like
resources :photos
generates a suite of routes and helpers. One of the routes is
/photos/:id/edit
and along with it comes the helper edit_photo_path(photo) which takes a photo object and returns the path to use to edit it. I use the helpers everywhere and want them to keep working as-is.
Well, for various reasons, this one application is generating custom IDs and it is possible for an ID to look like 64/edit or look like 64. This of course causes problems, because regardless of constraints or tweaks
/photos/64/edit
either gets interpreted as #edit 64 or #show 64/edit and neither one is always right.
The solution I would like to implement is to keep all the benefits of resourceful routers, in including being able to pass objects into the path helpers, and just change the Rails default edit path to be
/photos/edit/:id
Then all the paths would be unambiguous. Is there a (reasonably simple and clean) way to do this?
Note
I have a workaround in place so please do not provide workarounds.
Any solution must update the helpers so that edit_photo_path(photo) produces /photos/edit/:id and also works with nested resources. For example, edit_magazine_photo_path(#magazine, #photo) would produce /magazines/:magazine_id/photos/edit/:id.
I have multiple resources, so I'd prefer not to explode the size of my routes.rb with special overrides.
I know I can change the path name of the edit portion using the path_names option. (This is, in fact what I did, putting a Unicode character that will never appear in the ID in the renamed edit path, but now I have the users seeing Unicode URLs, which I don't like, and this will fail once IDs get expanded to Unicode strings.)
I know I can write custom match rules, but that gets very tedious and difficult with nested resources, particularly when it comes to generating path helpers that take objects.
I read the answer to the question "Remove the edit suffix to url" but that answer does not, in fact, remove the edit suffix, it changes a different part of the URL.
I really want insight into the inner workings of the resourceful route generation, especially the URL helpers, so that I can just switch the order of edit and id in the path.
Related
I'm learning how to do routing in MVC. It seems to me that the routing API only solves half the problem. I can easily see how to map incoming URLs to controller actions and params. However, it is not obvious to me how to generate these routed URLs in the source code of my pages.
For example, in one of my views, I use this code to get the route URL:
<a class="listingResult" href="#Url.RouteUrl("ListingSEO", new { id = Model.Listing.ID, seoName = ListingController.SeoName(Model.Listing.Title) })">
This seems like poor coding practice to me for several reasons:
If the route changes in the future, I may have many places in my View code that will need updating.
The View now requires knowledge of the ListingController (maybe this is not a big deal?)
I've lost strong typing on my input params, and if I misspell the param names, my code is broken, but this doesn't generate compile warnings.
How do I observe good coding standards when I am generating route URLs? The alternative seems to be putting static functions in the controller to generate routes, which would at least address concerns #1 and #3. If I worked with you and you saw the code above, how unhappy would you be?
My recommendations:
Generate URLs in the ViewModel, not the View: This will keep your views cleaner and logic free. You can pass the UrlHelper instance from the controller to the ViewModel, which will also help for my next point...
Use a strongly-typed URL generation technique: Such as delegate-based, expression-based or code generation.
One of the purposes of using named routes is to abstract the controller/action. Your named routes shouldn't really change. At the most, you'd just change the controller/action they hit, but that happens seamlessly behind the scenes because you're using named routes.
Your view requires knowledge of the controller because you've added a dependency on it. This is bad for a number of reasons. There's many different ways you could handle this that wouldn't require a dependency on the controller, depending on what it is you're actually doing here, but at the very least, you should simply use a utility class, so at least it wouldn't be controller-specific.
The route params are intentionally not strongly-typed, because routes are flexible by design. You can pass anything you want to the action, with or without a parameter to catch it (you can use something like Request to get at it without a param).
I have the following call:
http://localhost:3000/arc/v1/api/menus/51/only_items_with_notes
and I'm curious what is the preferred structure of the url - This reads fine and is totally clear what it means. But I am not sure if this is the canonical way to do this. One issue is that it does proliferate the routes.rb file. I have:
get '/menus/:menu_id/only_items_with_notes' => 'api_menus#only_items_with_notes'
One think I don't like is that it reads a bit like a pseudo nested attribute. What is the proper, canonical way to do this?
That’s pretty deep nesting. What other routes do you have?
In the absence of more information, I’d suggest that only_items_with_notes is really a filter on the functionality of the index action. You can use a query parameter to restrict the items to those with notes.
So I'm trying to add a new, shiny REST webservice to our CMS. It should follow the REST "roules" pretty closely, so it shall use GET/POST/PUT/DELETE and proper, logical URLs. My design is heavily inspired by the Apigee Best Practices.
The CMS manages a tree of categories, where each category can contain a number of articles. For multi-lingual projects, the categories are duplicated for each language (so any article is uniquely identifier by its ID and the language ID). The structure is the same across all languages, only the positions can vary (so category X contains the categories Y and Z in every language, but Y can be before Z in language 1 and the other way around in language 2). Creating a new article or category always also creates copies in all languages. Deleting works the same way, so an article is always deleted in all languages.
FYI: Languages are identified by their numeric ID or their locale (like en_US).
(Please image a leading /v1 in front of all URIs; I've skipped it because it adds nothing to this question.)`
My current approach is having an URL scheme like this:
GET /articles :( returns all articles in all languages
GET /articles/:id-:langid :) returns a single article in a given language
POST /articles :) creates a new article
PUT /articles/:id-:langid :) update a single article in a given language
DELETE /articles/:id :) delete an article in all languages
But...
How to identify languages?
Currently, the locale each language is assigned does not need to be unique, so two languages can in rare cases have the same locale. Using the ID is guaranteed to be unique.
Using the locale (most likely forced to lowercase) would be nice, cause the URLs are more readable. But this would
maybe lead to projects with overlapping locales.
require clients to first fetch the locales (but I guess a client would otherwise have to fetch the language IDs anyway, so that's kind of okay).
I would like to end up with exactly one solution to this and tend towards using the locale. But is it worth risking overlapping locales?
(You can image langid=X to be interchangeable with locale=xx_xx in the following.)
Should the language be a hierarchy element?
In most cases, clients of the API will want to fetch the articles for a given language instead of all. I could solve this by allowing a GET parameter and offer GET /articles?langid=42. But since is such a common usecase, I would like to avoid the optional parameter and make it explicit.
This would lead to GET /articles/:langid, but this introduces the concept that the language is a hierarchy level inside the API. If I'm going to do so, I would like to make it consistent for the other verbs. The new URL layout would look like this:
GET /articles/:langid :) returns all articles in a given language
GET /articles/:langid/:id :) returns a single article in a given language
POST /articles :( creates a new article in all languages
PUT /articles/:langid/:id :) update a single article in a given language
DELETE /articles/:langid/:id :( delete an article in all languages
or
GET /:langid/articles :) returns all articles in a given language
GET /:langid/articles/:id :) returns a single article in a given language
POST /articles :( creates a new article in all languages
PUT /:langid/articles/:id :) update a single article in a given language
DELETE /:langid/articles/:id :( delete an article in all languages
This leads to...
What to do with global actions?
The above layout has the problem that POST and DELETE work on all languages, but the URL suggests that they work only on one language. So I could modify the layout:
GET /articles/:langid :) returns all articles in a given language
GET /articles/:langid/:id :) returns a single article in a given language
POST /articles :) creates a new article in all languages
PUT /articles/:langid/:id :) update a single article in a given language
DELETE /articles/:id :) delete an article in all languages
This makes for a somewhat confusing layout, as the language level is only sometimes present and one needs to know a lot about the system's interna. On the bright side, this matches the system very well and is very similar to the internal workings.
Sacrifices?
So where do I make sacrifies? Should I introduce alias URLs to have nice URL layouts but do maybe unintended stuff in the backgroud?
I had the exact same problem some time ago and I decided to put local in front of everything. While consuming content it makes much more sense to read URLs like:
/en/articles/1/
/en/authors/2/
/gr/articles/1/
/gr/authors/2/
than
/articles/en/1/
/authors/en/2/
/articles/gr/1/
/authors/gr/2/
In order to solve the "no specific locale" issue I would use a keyword referring to all available locales, or a default locale. So:
/global/articles/
or
/all-locales/articles/
or
/all/articles/
to be honest I like global and all because they make sense reading them.
DELETE /global/articles/:id :) delete an article in all languages
hope I helped
My initial approach would have been to have language as an optional prefix in the URL, e.g. /en_us/articles, /en_us/articles/:id, but if you don't want to 'pollute' your URLs with language identifiers you can use the Accept-language header instead, in the same way that content negotiation is defined in RFC 2616. Microsoft's WebAPI is using this approach for format negotiation.
I have a rails 3 app and now i implementing filter for my catalog. Filters form pass data to controller through GET request. As a result i have link like this in my browser after i submit
my form (apply search):
http://localhost:3001/shoes?filter%5BShoeBottomType%5D%5B%5D=2&filter%5BShoeClassification%5D%5B%5D=1&filter%5BShoeClassification%5D%5B%5D=2&filter%5BShoeElation%5D%5B%5D=3&filter%5BShoeElation%5D%5B%5D=4&filter%5BShoeElation%5D%5B%5D=5&filter%5BShoeLiningColor%5D%5B%5D=2&filter%5BShoeLiningColor%5D%5B%5D=3&filter%5BShoeLiningColor%5D%5B%5D=4&filter%5BShoeTopColor%5D%5B%5D=1&filter%5BShoeTopColor%5D%5B%5D=2&filter%5Bonly_action%5D%5B%5D=1&page=2
Is there a way to do URL more beautiful?
PS i dont want use POST request, because I read that it is bad for SEO
TLDR: just leave it.
HTML forms serialize in a straightforward manner; the parameters are named after the HTML elements. The actual issue here is how the form elements are named. It looks like they have names like filter[ShoeBottomType][]; look into your HTML to see the name attributes. Since you're in Rails, I'm guessing you having a filter hash passed to your Rails controller method as a single argument, and since Rails expects hashes to use a certain URL format for hashes and arrays (it has to know how to deserialize it from the request), the form helper writes the form that way. And yours is especially complicated because the hash values are arrays, hence the extra set of brackets. Then it's URL encoded and you end up with an ugly mess.
You could avoid some of this problem by passing the inputs individually back to the controller instead of as a big hash. Something like:
def index
shoe_bottom_types = params[:bottom_types]
shoe_classifications = params[:classifications]
shoe_elations = params[:elations]
...
which will get you to: /shoes?bottomTypes[]=1&bottomTypes[]=2.... That doesn't seem much better, and now your controller is all gross. And I don't see how you're going to get rid of the brackets entirely if you want to have more than one of the same filter. I guess you could get crazy and do your own parsing in your controller, like breaking apart shoeBottomTypes=1|2, but then you'll have to do your own form serialization too. Again, just not worth it.
Backing up for a sec, the SEO stuff doesn't make much sense. Search engines won't fill out your form; they just follow links. The real reason you should use GET is that (presumably), submitting your form doesn't have side effects, since it's just a search. See here; it's important to use the right HTTP methods. If you use POST, you'll get weird warnings on reloads and you won't be able to bookmark the search.
Backing up even further, why do you care, especially now that SEO is out of the picture? Just as a quick demo, I did a google search for the word "thing" and this was the URL:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=thing&pbx=1&oq=thing&aq=f&aqi=g2g-s1g1&aql=1&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=764l1877l0l1980l6l6l0l0l0l0l89l432l5l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=220ef4545fdef788&biw=1920&bih=1086
So URLs for form submissions can be long. The user won't even look at it.
The only possibility I can think of for why you'd care about the length/ugliness of your URL here is that you want, separately from the form, to create links to certain searches. There are several ways to handle that, but since I don't know whether that's relevant to you, I'll let that be a follow-up.
So bottom line, it looks like I'd expect, and trying to fix it sounds ugly and pointless.
If you do not want to use a POST request, then there is no other way then to put the form values in the URL -- they have to get to the server one way or another.
On the other hand however, I do not see why doing a POST would be bad for SEO and I would love to see the article that stated so.
My suggestion is that you could add some custom routes to beautify your urls.
For example :
http://localhost:3001/shoes/Type/2/Classification/1,2/Elation/3,4,5/LiningColor/2,3,4/TopColor/1,2/only_action/1/page/2
This is far much shorter than your initial URL ;)
The counterpart is that, as far as I know, you have to use always the same order for params in your url.
The routing rule is the following :
match "shoes/Type/:type/Classification/:classification/Elation/:elation/LiningColor/:liningcolor/TopColor/:topcolor/only_action/:only_action/page/:page" => "shoes#show"
You can retrieve the passed values in params array. You have to split the string containing , in order to retrieve the multiple values.
I am trying to construct a route that routes to a specific product page.
The product exists in a category. Categories may also exist in categories. I am trying to construct the URL like
my-site.com/products/category/category/category/product
The amount of categories is able to change but the last parameter will always be the name of the product.
Is there any way to construct a route for this?
A solution exactly for you
I faced the same problem in the past and solved it a bit differently to what others will advise you here. Most of solutions will talk about *catch-all parameter. In your case this means that you'd have to parse the product out yourself. Manually. Because catch-all parameter may only be the last parameter in route definition.
Catch-all anywhere in the route
If you think of it carefully, you can actually realise that catch all parameter can actually be defined anywhere in the route as long as you have all other segments present. So I've written such route class that does all that and successfully runs in production on a heavy traffic website.
My blog post has all the information about it as well as all the code that will solve your problem:
Custom Asp.net MVC route class with catch-all segment anywhere in the URL
This makes it possible for you to define your route as:
products/{*categories}/{productId}
If you think of the catch-all parameter even further you could also get to the point that a single route definition could have several catch-all parameters as long as at least one segment between them is static. But my class isn't able to do this, because your scenario with just one arbitrary segment set is much more common.