I'd like to have a URL like this:
/payroll/region/1
and I'd like it to map to the Tasks Controller's payroll_list function. I'd also like to use REST. What's the best way to do this?
Many thanks!
Well I'd suggest you better go with the convention how Rails handles this. If you still insist on using such "strange" URLs and want to ignore the problems/headaches this can create during further development, then try to use Refraction.
I don't want to be rude but currently it seems to me that you did not understand why restful URLs are the way they are. Please do understand the design behind this first, then rethink your application/controller and routing design. I bet you will be enlighted.
In this example, your URL should probably be /regions/1/payrolls with map.resources :regions, :has_many => :payrolls. Then your payroll list would be rendered by the PayrollsController having a params[:region_id] - and that actually makes sense (and probably what you tried to achieve with your URL layout). Code snippet:
def index
if params[:region_id]
#region = Region.find(params[:region_id])
#payrolls = #region.payrolls
else
#payrolls = Payroll.all
end
end
If you still want to have a resource under a different named URL, use the following:
map.resources :regions do |regions|
regions.resources :tasks, :as => :payrolls
end
This will map the nested resources to the tasks controller using the named URL part "payrolls." But this probably does not work as you might expect because restful logic means you should handle the payroll model in the PayrollsController. Otherwise you might run into strange looking code. Maybe your design of the TasksController is just wrong? Rails will probably expect tasks to be handled over to your tasks controller although you name it payrolls. This can be confusing at least (however, it does not actually expect these being task models, so it will probably work).
BTW - Keep in mind: "restful" also means your application should answer to standard verbs on a resource, not just using "resourceful" routes. It's also about the GET, PUT, DELETE and POST http verbs, and of course the "edit", "new" etc default actions. Do not try to make your controllers big and complicated. Follow the motto "skinny controllers - fat models".
OK, so a better question, then might be this:
How can I get it so that I use your suggestion:
/regions/1/payroll
and have that map RESTfully to:
Tasks controller with index, new, etc that are prefixed by "payroll_"?
Like this: TasksController#payroll_index or TasksController#payroll_new
Related
Ruby on Rails 4.2+ only, please!
I've been looking all over for tips on how to make URLs pretty in Rails, and I'm struggling to see a solution I like.
What I want:
Hypothetical example: given Topic, Course, etc. models that have a bunch of fields (including URL-friendly slugs), I want to be able to
# ../routes.rb
# Match urls of the form /edu/material-engineering. These are read-only
# public URLs, not resources.
get 'edu/:slug', to: 'education#topic', as: :learn_topic
get 'edu/course/:id/slug', to: 'education#course', as: :learn_course
...
# I also have admin-only resource-oriented controllers for managing
# the content, but that's separate.
namespace :admin do
resource :topic
resource :course
...
end
# ../some_view.html.erb
# Generate URLS like this:
<%= link_to topic.name, learn_topic_path(topic) %>
<%= link_to course.name, learn_course_path(course) %>
What I don't want:
Messing with to_param. That's a dirty hack and completely breaks separation of concerns.
Resource/RESTful routing. There are no CRUD operations here other than "read."
link_to 'text', course_path(id: course.id, slug: course.slug). This completely defeats the purpose of not requiring views to know what params are required to generate a URL for a course.
EDIT: I know FriendlyId exists, but I'm precisely trying to understand how this sort of thing can be done and what the mechanics are, so that's not a solution for now.
There has to be a way to tell the named route helper topic_path(topic) to take the required parameters in the route (e.g, :slug, :id, whatever else) from the topic model object.
Anybody know? Thanks!
The best I've been able to come up with: just override the *_path helpers with my own implementation.
If you know a way to make the default helpers work, please chime in!
This problem boils down to one issue: the auto-generated *_path and *_url helpers don't give me the flexibility I want. What I want them to do is trivial, so without another option, I can just write my own:
module ApplicationHelper
def learn_topic_path(topic)
"/edu/#{topic.slug}"
end
...
end
Writing a few _path/_url helper overrides avoids all kinds of complication, and allows you to keep out of to_param, avoid including new plugins, etc.
One could probably go another step forward and generate the static components of the route from known routing rules, as well as infer what attributes one needed to extract from a model if the dynamic segment names line up to the model attribute names, but that starts to break down once you do more complicated things or add multiple models (e.g., 'edu/:topic_slug/:course_slug').
The big downside to doing this is that you now have to update routes in two places every time you change them: the route definition itself in routes.rb as well as the corresponding route helper in application_helper.rb. I can live with that for now.
You can use FriendlyId gem to achieve that.
Here's the link:
https://github.com/norman/friendly_id/blob/master/README.md
Let me know if you have questions.
I am trying to keep my controllers nice a RESTful. One thing I keep running into is the need for a button or link on the site to trigger a specific event on a model. For example:
#user.ban!
Currently, I either make a custom named route on the users controller or if it's a more complex set of related actions, I create a new controller that acts on the same model as another "traditionally named" controller.
What is the best approach in this type of situation? What factors weigh into the decision?
In your routes you would typically have a resources declaration looking something like this
resources :users
The best way to add a restfull route to this is to define a ban method in the users controller and add a member route to the users route so your route ends up looking like this
resources :users do
member do
post :ban, :pay, :whatever
end
end
Use a memeber route for form post put actions, i.e. when using button_to or form_for (plus others) view helpers. Use collections for get requests (i.e. links)
Alternatively you could use <%= button_to 'Ban', #user %> then in the update action for the users controller check the commit params for the text ban and act accordingly
Actually I use this myself occasionally like so
if params[:commit] == 'Ban'
# do something like calling a ban method setting a flash notice or alert and redirecting
else
normal controller flow
end
Better still. Use i18n to display the text on the button and check the same i18n value against the commit param thereby leaving you free to change the text text on the button by updating the i18n yml file without breaking your controller code
First off, what jamesw says is good. There are lots of details here...
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#non-resourceful-routes
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#adding-more-restful-actions
... and I actually go with that for whatever unconventional routes I need. About the "factors that weigh into this decision," though... I would first ask myself if this eccentric action is absolutely needed, because more often than not Rails' "convention over configuration" policy comes in. From experience, I find that it's pretty rare for me to need atypical actions. I guess if you can justify it, though, don't feel guilty and go with it.
I have rarely ever had to make a whole 'nother controller, though.
I have the following route:
get "/:user_name/things/:thing_name" => "things#show", :as => "show_user_thing"
Thing belongs to user. So with just an instance of thing I have both parameters. However, when using the route helpers, I'm forced to specify each segment separately like so:
show_user_thing_path(#thing.user, #thing)
This sucks. I'd much rather do just this:
show_user_thing_path(#thing)
But how do I do this the 'route helper way'? I'd love to still use all the rails goodies for route's like these. Any ideas?
I feel your pain. In the cases where I uses the url helper a lot, I just write my own helper.
def show_thing_by_user_path(thing)
show_user_thing_path(thing.user, thing)
end
Of course you'd have to modify it slightly to include any options and formatting, but I think you get the idea of what I'm saying.
I'm using Rails 2.
I have resources nested like this:
- university_categories
- universities
- studies
- professors
- comments
I wish to use RESTful routes, but I don't want all that clutter in my URL. For example instead of:
/universities/:university_id/studies/:study_id/professors/:professor_id
I want:
/professors/:university_id/:study_id/:professor_id
(I don't map professors seperately so there shouldn't be a confusion between this and /professors/:professor_id since that route shouldn't exist).
Again, I want to use RESTful resources/routes...
Also note, I am using slugs instead of IDs. Slugs for studies are NOT unique, while other are. Also, there are no many-to-many relationships (so if I know the slug of a professor, which is unique, I also know which study and university and category it belongs to, however I still wish this information to be in the URI if possible for SEO, and also it is necessary when adding a new professor). I do however want to use shallow nesting for "administrator" URIs like edit, destroy (note the problem here with Study since it's slug is not unique, though)...
I would also like some tips on how to use the url helpers so that I don't have too much to fix if I change the routes in the future...
Thank you.
It doesn't seem like map.resources will provide you with this functionality, but you could use something like (untested)
map.show_professor "/professors/:university_id/:study_id/:professor_id", :controller => "professors", :action => "show"
and then similar routes for the other actions.
There might be a better solution, but this is the only way I can find that would work, since it seems map.resources assumes it is in the form of /resources/(:resource_id)
You can use REST this way, you just have to do all the actions yourself instead of using the shortcut.
As an example of an edit, you can just use
map.edit_professor "/professors/:id/edit", :controller => "professors", :action => "edit"
I started a Rails project recently and decided to use RESTful controllers. I created controllers for my key entities (such as Country) and added index, new, edit, create, show, update and delete. I added my map.resources :country to my routes file and life was good.
After development progressed a little, I started to encounter problems. I sometimes needed extra actions in my controller. First there was the search action that returned the options for my fancy autocompleting search box. Then came the need to display the countries in two different ways in different places in the application (the data displayed was different too, so it wasn't just two views) - I added the index_full action. Then I wanted to show a country by name in the URL, not by id so I added the show_by_name action.
What do you do when you need actions beyond the standard index, new, edit, create, show, update, delete in a RESTful controller in Rails? Do I need to add (and maintain) manual routes in the routes.rb file (which is a pain), do they go in a different controller, do I become unRESTful or am I missing something fundamental?
I guess I am asking, do I need to work harder and add actions into my routes.rb file for the privilege of being RESTful? If I wasn't using map.resources to add the REST goodies, the standard :controller/:action, :controller/:action/:id routes would handle pretty much everything automatically.
I would treat search as a special case of index. Both actions return a collection of resources. The request parameters should specify things like page, limit, sort order, and search query.
For example:
/resources/index # normal index
/resources/index?query=foo # search for 'foo'
And in resources_controller:
before_filter :do_some_preprocessing_on_parameters
def index
#resources = Resource.find_by_param(#preprocessed_params)
end
As for index_full and search_by_name, you might look at splitting your current controller into two. There's a smell about what you've described.
Having said that, you're absolutely right that there's no point in forcing your app to user restful routes when it doesn't deliver anything over /:controller/:action/:id. To make the decision, look how frequently you're using the restful resource route helpers in forms and links. If you're not using them, I wouldn't bother with it.
If I go beyond the standard CRUD actions with my models, I normally just add the methods as required. Searching is something I add to many controllers, but not every one, so I add it and maintain the routes normally:
map.resources :events, :collection => { :search => :get }
Moving these actions to an entirely separate controller might keep some of your controllers RESTful, but I find that keeping them in context is far more useful.
REST does not specify that you can't have additional views. No real world application is going to be able use only the supplied actions; this is why you can add your own actions.
REST is about being able to make stateless calls to the server. Your search action is stateless each time as the data so far is supplied back, correct? Your alternate display action is also stateless, just a different view.
As to if they should be manual routes or a new controller, that depends on how distinct the activity is. Your alternate view, if it provides a full set of CRUD (create, read, update, delete) operations would do well to be in a new controller. If you only have an alternate view to the data, I would just add an alternate view action.
In other words, it doesn't sound like your application is failing to be RESTful, it is more an issue of realizing that the automatically generated feature set is a starting point, not a conclusion.
In my opinion they may have gone a bit off the rails here. What happened to DRY?
I'm just getting back into Rails not having done much development with it since beta and I'm still waiting for the light-bulb to come on here. I'm still giving it a chance but if it hasn't happened for me by the end of my current project I'll probably just drop-back to the old standard routes and define the methods as I actually need them for the next one.
I won't go on to explain more about REST since I think that has been answered in this question, however I will talk a little bit about the default route.
My main problem with the default route is that if you have multiple sites using the same Rails app it can look horrible.
For example there may be controllers that you don't want people to be able to see on one app:
http://example1.somesite.com/example_2/foo/bar/1
compare this to
/:controller/:action/:id
This would go to the controller example_2/foo, action bar and id 1
I consider this to be the main flaw of Rails' default route and this is something that RESTful routes (with subdomain extensions) or only named routes (map.connect 'foo' ... ) can fix.
To remain RESTful in your design, you need to rethink what you call a resource.
In your example a show action for a search controller, (search resource) is the direction to remain restful.
In mine, I have a dashboard controller (show) and controllers for single fields of in-place ecditors (show and update)