How do I pass array of parameters through Get method in rails? Currently my URL loocs like this:
http://localhost:3000/jobs/1017/editing_job_suites/1017/editing_member_jobs/new?ids[]=1025&ids[]=1027
How can I pass the array with Get method but avoid ?ids[]=1025&ids[]=1027 part.
Request is being sent with javascript window.open method. Is there any workaround to send not ajax Post request.
You should stick to using a GET request if you are not changing the state of anything, and all you want to to access a read only value.
To send an array of ids to rails in a GET request simply name your variable with square brackets at the end.
//angular snippet
$http.(method:'GET',
...
params: {'channel_id':2, 'product_ids[]': productIds}
//where productIds is an array of integers
...
)
Do not concatenate your ids as a comma separated list, just pass them individually redundantly. So in the url it would look something like this:
?channel_id=2&product_ids[]=6900&product_ids[]=6901
url encoded it will actually be more like this:
?channel_id=2&product_ids%5B%5D=6900&product_ids%5B%5D=6901
Rails will separate this back out for you.
Parameters: {"channel_id"=>"2", "product_ids"=>["6900", "6901"]}
No, GET can only put variables on the url itself. If you want the URL to be shorter, you have to POST. That's a limitation feature of HTTP, not Rails.
I recently wanted to do this and found a workaround that is a little less complex, and so has some complexity limitations but may also be easier to implement. Can't speak to security, etc.
If you pass your array values as a string with a delimiter, e.g.
http://example.com/controller?job_ids=2342,2354,25245
Then you can take the result and parse it back to what you want:
job_ids = params[:job_ids].split(',')
Then do whatever:
job_ids.each do |job_id|
job = Job.find(job_id.to_i)
end
etc
#Homan answer is valid for using an external client (e.g curl or angular). Inside Rails test cases though, you should not use []. Here's an example:
get get_test_cases_url(**path_params), params: {case_ids: ["NON-9450", "NON-12345", "NON-9361"]}
This is using new format where get_test_cases is name of route and you pass to the method all params needed to construct the URL path. Query params are a separate hash.
FYI if I use [] like case_ids[], then instead of ["NON-9450", "NON-12345", "NON-9361"] I'm getting it parsed to [["NON-9450"], ["NON-12345"], ["NON-9361"]]
Related
I have a search page where I update the URL params on the page as filters are added or removed by the user. This allows me to deep link into the page (ie. going to /search?location=new+york&time=afternoon will set the location and afternoon filters).
I also have a filter named format. I noticed that passing in ?format=whatevervalue to the URL and then reloading the page with that param causes Rails to return a Completed 406 Not Acceptable error. It seems that format is a reserved Rails URL parameter.
Is there anyway to unreserve this parameter name for a particular endpoint?
In the context of an URL in Ruby on Rails there are at least four reserved parameter names: controller, method, id, format.
You cannot use these keys for anything else than for their intended purpose.
If you try to you will override the value internally set by Rails. In your example by setting ?format=whatevervalue you override the default format (html) and your application will try to find and render a whatevervalue template instead of the html formatted template. This will obviously not work.
Fun fact: Instead of using the default Rails path format like /users/123/edit you could use query parameters instead like this: /?controller=users&id=123&method=edit&format&html.
My suggestion is: Do not try to fight Rails conventions. Whenever you try to work around basic Rails conventions it will hurt you later on because it makes updates more difficult, common gems might break, unexpected side-effects will happen. Just use another name for that parameter.
Suppose I am expecting a url as part of my route - maybe a callback url or similar - I might use the following route:
get '/mymodel/:url', to: 'mycontroller#docallback', url: /.*/
Now I would like to be able to go to http://www.myapp.com/mymodel/http://www.google.co.uk/ and process http://www.google.co.uk/ in mycontroller - but it is processed as http:/www.google.co.uk/ (one slash). How can I rectify this? Is the regex wrong or is there some flag I have to set?
I don't think that "http://www.myapp.com/mymodel/http://www.google.co.uk/" is a valid url.
Normally if you want to pass a url as a parameter you would call CGI.escape on it first, which would convert "http://www.google.co.uk/" to "http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F" CGI.escape will turn any string into a url-safe version of itself, basically replacing any characters which have a special function in a url, like ":/?&" and also space and some other characters which would otherwise break the formatting.
So, you would end up with a url like
"http://www.myapp.com/mymodel/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F"
which would come through in params like
params = {:url => "http://www.google.co.uk/"}
Note how it's been unescaped here: Rails automatically* calls CGI.unescape on parameter values before putting them into the params hash.
However, this url
"http://www.myapp.com/mymodel/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F"
looks pretty weird to me. It would be better to be more explicit and pass it through as a named parameter in the url itself, like
"http://www.myapp.com/mymodel?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F"
which will require a slight change to your routes.
* I think Rails will do this but it might depend on circumstances. Try it.
...Turned out that the request was not encoded on the client side before being sent, solution was to use encodeURIComponent() on the url before sending it.
I'm trying to build an Href using Razor
The string is going to end up looking like this:
https://www.notmysite/controller/action?order_ID=xxxxxxx&hashComparator=iFxp3%2BszAMaEB%2FnHCtRr9Ulhv0DumtyDumCik4gKypJqi0BdOGXXsr9QDkfefAsLaR1Xy%2BrX9VcuzP1pF2k6dL%2F92UxphzTKqNAZP2SSZGWtvyO5az%2F9JvDY%2Bsq5TBQo7%2FYAAMIU4QxiSX1SBKk8SUNECW3ZmKM%3D
In my model I have the order id and the hash string
As the route is not a part of my site I don't believe I can use the default methods like #Url.Action
and therefore can't use protocol: Request.Url.Scheme
like I've used elsewhere.
So at present I'm trying to figure out how to create this using string functions
I've tried
Url.Encode
Url.EscapeDataString
Html.Encode
but am getting no where fast:
Click Here to be transferred
The output text always has plusses and equals in them and doesn't work.
Which combination do I need?!
I've figured out a way of doing it:
#{
var url = string.Format(
"https://www.notmysite.co.uk/controller/action?order_ID={0}&hashComparator={1}",
#Uri.EscapeDataString(Model.bookingNumber.ToString()),
#Uri.EscapeDataString(Model.hashCode));
}
<p>Click Here to be transferred</p>
Edit 2015 - As mentioned by Jerads post - The solution is to only encode the query string elements and not the whole URL - which is what the above does.
This was the first link that came up for this issue for me. The answers didn't work for me though because I am using core, I think. So wanted to add this in.
System.Net.WebUtility.UrlEncode(MyVariableName)
If Url.Encode doesn't work try the above. Also as stated before don't use this on the entire URL string, just use it for the individual querystring variables. Otherwise there is a good chance your URL wont work.
The problem is that you're trying to encode the whole URL. The only pieces you want to encode are the querystring values, and you can just use Url.Encode() for this.
You don't want to encode the address, the querystring params, or the ? and & delimiters, otherwise you'll end up with an address the browser can't parse.
Ultimately, it would look something like this:
Click Here to be transferred
The easier method is to use #Html.Raw(Model.SomethingUrl)
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.
Do I need to encode strings (eg URL) I pass as a POST form parameter?
Ie I want to pass a URL I have to my web application (ruby on rails) as one of the form parameters. So are there any potential characters in a URL/URI that would need to be encoded? Or perhaps rails would handle this anyway?
Do I need to encode strings (eg URL) I pass as a POST form parameter?
That depends on what you're using to create/send your POST request. If you're directly creating the request body yourself, then yes you would have to URL-encode each parameter:
POST / HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
foo=bar&url=http://www.example.com/url?innerparameter1=1&innerparameter2=2
this is no good:innerparameter2 is actually a parameter of the outer form-encoded string. It would need encoding, which would look like:
foo=bar&url=http%3A//www.example.com/url%3Finnerparameter1%3D1%26innerparameter2%3D2
If, however, you are using something higher-level to make the POST request, and passing in some kind of mapping of parameter strings, I would expect that component to take care of the URL-encoding for you.
Code?
As bobince mentions, you need to encode any data that you're passing as URL parameters. Often whatever library you're using will take care of this. This applies to all HTTP requests BTW.
For example, an API has an endpoint GET /sites/:name.
Using cURL it should look like
curl http://example.com/sites/google%2Ecom
In Ruby/Rails, you can use URI.encode and URI.decode:
>> URI.encode('google.com', /\W/)
"google%2Ecom"
>> URI.decode('google%2Ecom')
"google.com"
As a general statement, if you emit programmatic or user input data to an HTML page, you should encode it for HTML. Bear in mind that URLs often have the & character and that should be encoded, even if browsers appear to handle it okay.
I'm not a Ruby guy, so I don't know how you do that in Ruby, nor am I familiar with Ruby on Rails to say if it will do it (though I would be a little surprised by that), but the guideline I suggest isn't language specific.