I am trying to create tests for nested resources in Rails. The relevant route definition is:
resources :communities do
resources :contents, :type => 'Content'
end
Using RSpec and factory_girl, I am trying to get started with testing with e.g.
describe ContentsController do
it 'should display a content item under a community' do
content = FactoryGirl.create(:content)
get :show, :community_id => content.community.id, :id => content.id
end
end
These requests always result in
Failure/Error: get :show, :community_id => content.community.id, :id => content.id
ActionController::RoutingError:
No route matches {:community_id=>BSON::ObjectId('4e7773c6ac54c3d1ad000002'),
:id=>BSON::ObjectId('4e7773c6ac54c3d1ad000001'), :controller=>"contents",
:action=>"show"}
For the life of me I cannot find a way to specify a route to a nested resource with RSpec. Am I doing something fundamentally wrong here?
Update: The relevant part of rake routes is:
community_contents GET /communities/:community_id/contents(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"contents"}
POST /communities/:community_id/contents(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"contents"}
new_community_content GET /communities/:community_id/contents/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"contents"}
edit_community_content GET /communities/:community_id/contents/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"contents"}
community_content GET /communities/:community_id/contents/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"contents"}
PUT /communities/:community_id/contents/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"contents"}
DELETE /communities/:community_id/contents/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"contents"}
I see that you are passing the content.community.id as the :community_id and that object looks like a mongo document that is identified with a BSON::ObjectId. Try to use to_param instead as following:
get :show, :community_id => content.community.to_param, :id => content.to_param
Related
I'm taking an MOOC and the goal of this exercise is to add a new functionality to typo, where i can merge two articles together.
When I add the route to my new function merge to the routes.rb I'm losing the functionality to delete articles. I think something clashes here, but I have no idea what.
The original routes.rb:
%w{advanced cache categories comments content profiles feedback general pages
resources sidebar textfilters themes trackbacks users settings tags redirects seo post_types }.each do |i|
match "/admin/#{i}", :to => "admin/#{i}#index", :format => false
match "/admin/#{i}(/:action(/:id))", :to => "admin/#{i}", :action => nil, :id => nil, :format => false
end
This method in articles.rb creates the correct url for deleting
def delete_url
blog.url_for(:controller => "/admin/content", :action =>"destroy",:id => id)
end
correct url:
http://example.com/admin/content/destroy/7
If i follow this link i can successfully delete an article.
However, if I add the following before that to my routes.rb:
namespace "admin" do
resources :content do
post :merge, on: :member, as: :merge
end
end
The new merging functionality and forms are working fine, but the method delete_url now produces something like this:
http://example.com/admin/content/7
and if I follow a link created by this method i get:
Unknown action
The action 'show' could not be found for Admin::ContentController
Maybe I'm overwriting something? I can't figure out what's happening here and why this affects the delete action / route.
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: rake routes | grep content:
with the original routes.rb gives me:
admin_content /admin/content {:controller=>"admin/content", :action=>"index"}
/admin/content(/:action(/:id)) {:action=>nil, :id=>nil, :controller=>"admin/content"}
whereas my modified routes.rb produces
merge_admin_content POST /admin/content/:id/merge(.:format) {:action=>"merge", :controller=>"admin/content"}
admin_content_index GET /admin/content(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/content"}
POST /admin/content(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/content"}
new_admin_content GET /admin/content/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/content"}
edit_admin_content GET /admin/content/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"admin/content"}
admin_content GET /admin/content/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"admin/content"}
PUT /admin/content/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"admin/content"}
DELETE /admin/content/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"admin/content"}
/admin/content {:controller=>"admin/content", :action=>"index"}
/admin/content(/:action(/:id)) {:action=>nil, :id=>nil, :controller=>"admin/content"}
Okay, thanks to #guitarman i worked through my routes code and found out I can add the following except:
namespace "admin" do
resources :content, except: [:index, :show, :update, :destroy, :edit, :new, :create] do
post :merge, on: :member, as: :merge
end
end
after that, the rake routes just shows the additional merge route I wanted and my destroy action works fine again.
Check rake routes command. I think there is a route /admin/content/:id which will be created by resources :content in the namespace "admin".
Your request to http://example.com/admin/content/7 will be catched be the defined route but I gess you have no show action in the controller.
Better:
namespace "admin" do
post "/content/:id/merge", to: "admin/content#merge", as: :merge
end
For more information about recources and the CRUD operations please see the rails routing guide.
I'm using rspec-rails (2.8.1) and rails 3.1.3.
I'm trying to test routes for my Admin::ZonesController. I have verified the route exists in both the browser and by running rake routes. I am not using ActiveRecord (if that matters). When I run the routing spec, it tells me:
ActionController::RoutingError: No route matches "/admin/zones/new"
Here is the test (spec/routing/admin/zones_routing_spec.rb):
require 'spec_helper'
describe "routing to zones" do
it "routes /admin/zones/new to admin/zones#new" do
{ :get => "/admin/zones/new" }.should route_to(
:controller => "admin/zones",
:action => "new"
)
end
end
Here is the controller action whose route I am trying to test (admin/zones#new):
class Admin::ZonesController < Admin::BaseController
before_filter :instantiate_variables
def new
#zone = Zone.new
#campaign = Campaign.new
#rules = [Rule.new]
end
end
Running rake routes gives me this:
POST /hooks/:resource(.:format) {:controller=>"hooks", :action=>"create"}
POST /services/:service/:method(.:format) {:controller=>"services", :action=>"create"}
admin_zones GET /admin/zones(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
POST /admin/zones(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
new_admin_zone GET /admin/zones/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
edit_admin_zone GET /admin/zones/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
admin_zone GET /admin/zones/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
PUT /admin/zones/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
DELETE /admin/zones/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"admin/zones"}
admin_widgets GET /admin/widgets(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
POST /admin/widgets(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
new_admin_widget GET /admin/widgets/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
edit_admin_widget GET /admin/widgets/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
admin_widget GET /admin/widgets/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
PUT /admin/widgets/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
DELETE /admin/widgets/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"admin/widgets"}
zones GET /zones(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"zones"}
POST /zones(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"zones"}
new_zone GET /zones/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"zones"}
edit_zone GET /zones/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"zones"}
zone GET /zones/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"zones"}
PUT /zones/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"zones"}
DELETE /zones/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"zones"}
root / {:controller=>"admin/zones", :action=>"new"}
My routes.rb looks like this:
D2CModularPlatform::Application.routes.draw do
post "/hooks/:resource" => "hooks#create"
post "/services/:service/:method" => "services#create"
namespace :admin do
resources :zones
resources :widgets
end
resources :zones
root :to => "admin/zones#new"
end
My controllers dir looks like this:
controllers
admin
base_controller
widgets_controller
zones_controller
application_controller
hooks_controller
services_controller
zones_controller
My spec/routing dir looks like this:
spec/routing
admin
zones_routing_spec
hooks_routing_spec
services_routing_spec
zones_routing_spec
What basic settings are required to make sure routing url name helpers work?
For instance in my route I have the following:
Blog::Application.routes.draw do
resources :news, :as => :news_items, :controller => :news_items, :only => [:show, :index]
scope :module => "refinery" do
scope(:path => 'refinery', :as => 'admin', :module => 'Admin') do
resources :news, :except => :show, :as => :news_items, :controller => :news_items
end
end
end
but the following doesn't seem to work:
new_refinery_news_url
I keep on getting the error
undefined local variable or method `new_refinery_news_url'
So I'm pretty sure something is missing in the way I have configured my application, who's main routing is in the RefineryCMS gem which was added in the Gemfile.
Any thoughts?
Had to use main_app.new_refinery_news_url instead.
The helper name will be new_admin_news_item_url.
It's simple to find all routes and their helper methods. Just run rake routes and you will see:
news_items GET /news(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"news_items"}
news_item GET /news/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"news_items"}
admin_news_items GET /refinery/news(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"refinery/Admin/news_items"}
POST /refinery/news(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"refinery/Admin/news_items"}
new_admin_news_item GET /refinery/news/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"refinery/Admin/news_items"}
edit_admin_news_item GET /refinery/news/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"refinery/Admin/news_items"}
admin_news_item PUT /refinery/news/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"refinery/Admin/news_items"}
DELETE /refinery/news/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"refinery/Admin/news_items"}
With mountable engines you always need to specify "main_app." (or for Refinery routes "refinery.") prefix because engines are isolated from the application.
A solution, if you're using routes outside of refinery, is to prefix the named_path with the Rails object that contains the methods for named routes
Rails.application.routes.url_helpers.new_admin_news_item_path
I'm confused by my rake routes output. For an example (trimmed):
profil GET /profil/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"profil"}
PUT /profil/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"profil"}
login GET /login(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"sessions"}
POST /login(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"sessions"}
logout GET /logout(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"sessions"}
I've always thought:
Line 2: Route can be accessed using profil_path with PUT method.
Line 4: Route can be accessed using login_path with POST method.
Conclusion: Lines with the first column empty (line 2 and 4) would follow the one above it.
However, I've been experimenting with adding parameter to the url. So, I added these codes in my routes.rb:
namespace :admin do
resources :pengguna_bulk, :only => [:new, :create]
resources :pengguna do
collection do
get 'index/:page', :action => :index
end
end
end
New rake routes output (trimmed):
admin_pengguna_bulk_index POST /admin/pengguna_bulk(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/pengguna_bulk"}
new_admin_pengguna_bulk GET /admin/pengguna_bulk/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/pengguna_bulk"}
GET /admin/pengguna/index/:page(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
admin_pengguna_index GET /admin/pengguna(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
POST /admin/pengguna(.:format) {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
new_admin_pengguna GET /admin/pengguna/new(.:format) {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
edit_admin_pengguna GET /admin/pengguna/:id/edit(.:format) {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
admin_pengguna GET /admin/pengguna/:id(.:format) {:action=>"show", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
PUT /admin/pengguna/:id(.:format) {:action=>"update", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
DELETE /admin/pengguna/:id(.:format) {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
My question is, why is the 3rd route looks like it's under the 2nd route? Is it empty because Rails do not know what to name it and I'd have to use get 'index/:page', :action => :index, :as => :page to name it?
So, this means, route with an empty first column doesn't always follow the above path?
I've always thought:
Line 2: Route can be accessed using profil_path with PUT method.
Line 4: Route can be accessed using login_path with POST method.
Conclusion: Lines with the first column empty (line 2 and 4) would
follow the one above it.
Everything's correct except the conclusion. profil_path expands to /profil/:id(.:format). If it is called with method GET it responds to your first route, if its called with method PUT it responds to your second route.
But same doesn't hold true for second set of routes. You don't have any named helper for /admin/pengguna/index/:page(.:format). If you want a named helper, you should define the route like:
get 'index/:page', :action => :index, :as => :what_ever_named_helper_you_want
I have the following routes in my app:
GET /admin/comments(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"index"}
admin_comments POST /admin/comments(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"create"}
new_admin_comment GET /admin/comments/new(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"new"}
GET /admin/comments/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"show"}
PUT /admin/comments/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"update"}
admin_comment DELETE /admin/comments/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"destroy"}
edit_admin_comment GET /admin/comments/:id/edit(.:format) {:controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"edit"}
admin_approve_comment /admin/comments/approve/:id {:module=>"admin", :controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"approve"}
admin_reject_comment /admin/comments/reject/:id {:module=>"admin", :controller=>"admin/comments", :action=>"reject"}
which is declared as:
namespace "admin" do
resources :comments
match '/comments/approve/:id' => 'comments#approve', :as => "approve_comment", :module => "admin"
match '/comments/reject/:id' => 'comments#reject', :as => "reject_comment", :module => "admin"
end
and a functional test like this:
context "a POST to :approve" do
setup do
comment = Factory(:comment)
sign_in Factory(:admin)
post :approve, :id => comment.id
end
should respond_with :success
end
However, when I run this I get:
test: a POST to :approve should respond with 200. (Admin::CommentsControllerTest):
ActionController::RoutingError: No route matches {:action=>"approve", :id=>339, :controller=>"admin/comments"}
What's wrong here? What stupid mistake am I making?
These routes look like member routes to me. So routing this way
namespace "admin" do
resources :comments do
member do
get :approve
get :reject
end
end
end
This will generate routes like /admin/comments/:id/approve . This is the rails way as far i know.
I think it's better to put match before resources. Because it's not check if it's good or not.