I have two models: Books and pages in a typical one_to_many relationship.
How can I make the following
page_path(#page)
output this path:
bookname/page/pageid
instead of
page/pageid
If I override the to_param, all I can do is make a path like localhost/page/bookid/pageid but that's not what I want.
Not sure if it's possible to get exactly what you want, but you can make the Page a nested resource under book like this:
resources :books do
resources :pages
end
Then you will get:
localhost/book/bookid/page/pageid
Then you can override `to_param' to get:
localhost/book/bookid-bookname/page/pageid
I'm assuming you mean to have path as /:book_name/page/:id
In routes.rb:
match '/:book_name/page/:id' => "page#show", :as => :page
In the controller you would access params[:id] to get page.id and params[:book_name] to get the name of the book.
I discovered that to have full control over path helpers, you have to override those inside the application_helper.erb file. The following code worked for me:
def pages_path(#page)
#bookpath = Book.find(#page.book_id)
#bookpath + '/page/' + #page.id
end
The helper only creates the path. You still need to link it to a particular action in routes.rb. You may even nest the pages resource inside the books resource. The only important thing is that the path generated by the above helper must be recognizable by the rails application.
Related
I am someone who has always liked sinatra better than rails, and has never had to do a large enough scale project that rails was required (all the sources I have read say that rails is better for larger scale projects) and now I do have to do a large scale project. I have gotten very confused with the url structure of rails. What I am trying to do is the rails equivalent of this:
get "/" do
erb :index
end
get "/home" do
erb :dashboard
end
get "/home/profile" do
erb :profile
end
get "/home/friends" do
erb :friends
end
In the first one I understand that I should put in app/routes.rb I should put root home#index and in the home controller I should put def index end.
In the second one, I understand that I should do the same except replacing index with home.
But for the third and forth ones I have no idea what to do.
Also, is the a RESTful way to do the first two?
You probably want something like this
root 'home#index'
get 'home' => 'home#dashboard'
get 'home/profile' => 'home#profile'
get 'home/friends' => 'home#friends'
remember to use the command rake routes to see all your routes, where they lead and what their names are (if they have any)
I never understood what RESTful means, so someone else will have to answer that part of your question.
K M Rakibul Islam has shown you what can be called a "resourceful" way to do routes (because it uses the keyword resources) but it looks like you're just doing the static pages at this stage, so it's not necessary.
The simplest way to do routes is with this formula:
method url => controller::action, as: route_name
where method can be get, post, patch or delete so you can have different actions linked to the same URL depending on the method the request uses.
Putting a name on the route is optional, but it gives you a clean way to use the route in your views (route_name_path)
When you start making models then you'll find that using the resources keyword comes in handy. Read about it.
You can have this:
resources :home do
collection do
get :profile
end
collection do
get :friends
end
end
end
This will give you routes like this:
profile_home_index GET /home/profile(.:format) home#profile
friends_home_index GET /home/friends(.:format) home#friends
The standard way of declaring the root path:
root 'home#index'
And for the 2nd one, you have to do:
get 'home' => 'home#dashboard'
which will give you this route:
GET /home(.:format) home#dashboard
One route can be defined in many ways that works. But, Rails has conventions that should be followed while defining routes in your Rails app.
I would highly recommend you to take a look at the Rails Routing Guide
I hope the title is not to misleading, as I don't know a better title for the problem I'm working on:
I have a doctor which belongs to location and specialty. I'd like to route to show action of the doc controller like this:
/dentist/berlin/7
I defined my routes like this:
get ':specialty/:location/:id', to: 'docs#show'
And in my views create the following url to link to the show action of the doc controller:
<%= link_to doc.name, "#{doc.specialty.name}/#{doc.location.name}/#{doc.id}" %>
Is this a good solution to the problem? If not, is there a cleaner way to construct urls like this possibly using resources? What the heck is the name for a this problem?
Thank your very much for your help in advance.
For references, you should have a look at this page (especially the end of section 2.6)
If it is only for a single route, it's okay as you did. But then if you want to have more than one route (like /dentist/berlin/7, /dentist/berlin/7/make_appointment, etc.) you might want to structure a bit more your routes so as to take advantage of rails resources.
For example, instead of
get ':specialty/:location/:id', to: 'doctors#show'
get ':specialty/:location/:id/appointment', to: 'doctors#new_appointment'
post ':specialty/:location/:id/appointment', to: 'doctors#post_appointment'
You could have something like this (the code is almost equivalent, see explanation below)
resources :doctors, path: '/:specialty/:location', only: [:show] do
member do
get 'new_appointment'
post 'create_appointment'
end
end
Explanation
resources will generate the RESTful routes (index, show, edit, new, create, destroy) for the specified controller (doctors_controller I assume)
The 'only' means you don't want to add all the RESTful routes, just the ones specified
Then you want to add member actions, ie. actions that can be executed on a particular item of the collection. You can chose different syntaxes
resources :doctors do
member do
# Everything here will have the prefix /:id so the action applies to a particular item
end
end
# OR
resources :doctors do
get 'new_appointement', on: :member
end
By default, the controller action is the same as the path name you give, but you can also override it
member do
get 'appointment', action: 'new_appointment'
post 'appointment', action: 'post_appointment'
end
Rails has some wonderful helpers when it comes to routing !
The correct approach is to give your route a name, like this:
get ':specialty/:location/:id', to: 'docs#show', as: 'docs_show'
Then you can use it like this:
<%= link_to doc.name, docs_show_path(doc.specialty.name, doc.location.name, doc.id) %>
Note 1:
Rails appends _path at the end of the route names you define.
Note 2:
You can see all the available named routes by executing rake routes.
This is my first Rails project, I am trying to piece things together slowly.
When I'm trying to view the page I generated using rails g controller <controller> <page>, I find myself going to 0.0.0.0:3000/controller/page.html, How can I configure it so that my route file globally allows viewing the page via the page name, rather than controller/page, if no such way exists, then how can I route controller/page.html to /page.html
I've looked around, and haven't really found any explanation, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?
In config/routes.rb:
get '/page' => 'controller#action'
If your controller is:
class UsersController < ApplicationController
def something
end
end
Then config/routes.rb would be:
get '/page' => 'users#something'
For static pages you could want to use public folder though, everything you put there is directly accessible, for example public/qqqqqq.html would be accessed in localhost:3000/qqqqqq.html
We've just achieved this by using the path argument in resources method:
#config/routes.rb
resources :controller, path: ""
For you specifically, you'll want to make something like this:
#config/routes.rb
resources :static_pages, path: "", only: [:index]
get :page
get :other_page
end
#app/controllers/your_controller.rb
def page
end
def other_page
end
This will give you routes without the controller name. You'll have to define this at the end of your routes (so other paths come first)
Obviously this will form part of a wider routes file, so if it doesn't work straight up, we can refactor!
It sounds like this is a static page, so you can do as juanpastas says, or another option is to create a folder under your app/views directory to hold these pages. Maybe something like
app/views/static_pages/the_page.html.erb
Then in your config/routes.rb you can add:
match '/your_page_name', to: 'static_pages#the_page', via: :get
Stupid question... I have two forms with two different functions on one page, my views/projects/new.html.erb file. So far I've only implemented one, with the option to "Create" a new project. I want to add another function to sort the records displayed on the same page, something like:
<%= link_to "Category", { :controller => "projects", :action => "sortTable", :filter => "Category" }, :remote => true %>
--
My routes.rb file:
Docside::Application.routes.draw do
resources :projects
resources :categories
#get "home/index"
root :to => "projects#new"
match 'project/new',:controller=>"projects",:action=>"create"
end
But I'm getting the error "No route matches {:action=>"sortTable", :controller=>"projects"}". When I tried adding " match 'project/new',:controller=>"projects",:action=>"sortTable" " my other function didn't work, and the create function got screwed up. What should I have instead?
Try that:
resources :projects do
collection do
post :sortTable
end
end
And look at this guide
You can only have one route for a given path and method combination. You're trying to define multiple routes on the same path, so only one of these will work (the first one). You should be ok if you use distinct paths for each of these actions (instead of project/new for all of them. Beware of collisions with your existing routes)
You'll also make you life easier if you stick to rails' conventions (and the code will be easier to read if someone else starts working on it). For example resources :projects already creates a route for the create action. Additional actions can be added like so
resources :projects do
collection do
get :sort_table
end
end
Sets up a collection route (ie one that isn't about a specific project) for the sort_table action and sets up a URL helper for you (sort_table_projects_path). There are alternative syntaxes you can use - I encourage you to have a look at the routing guide
I am using Ruby on Rails 3.0.7 and I am trying to set nested resource routing to make it to work in a "not regular" RoR way.
In my routes.rb file I have
resources :articles do
resources :categories, :only => [:index], :controller => 'articles/categories' # The related controller is Articles::CategoriesController
end
so that I can browse following URLs:
<my_site>/articles/1/categories
<my_site>/articles/2/categories
...
What I would to do is to access new, edit and show controller actions for categories by using the same articles/categories controller used for the nested resource stated above (that is, Articles::CategoriesController) and by accessing these URLs:
<my_site>/articles/categories/new
<my_site>/articles/categories/edit
<my_site>/articles/categories/1
<my_site>/articles/categories/2
...
How can I do that? How I must code the router?
Maybe I can do something by using the router collection method like this
resources :articles do
collection do
# match something here for the Articles::CategoriesController...
end
resources :categories, :only => [:index], :controller => 'articles/categories'
end
but I don't know how to do that.
I'm not real sure what you're trying to do with those routes, so I'm not quite sure how to answer your questions. If your intent is to be able to add a new category for a particular article, or edit all the categories for a particular article, you have to pass an ID for the article. If you're trying to create a new article and a new category all at once, you don't need category in the route, just the article and you can do something like form_for([#article,#category]) in your form and use the build method in your controller. If you can clarify, I might be able to help you further (in other words, it's not hard to construct those routes -- but it depends on what you want to do with them.