Search Results

Search found 17016 results on 681 pages for 'ruby debug'.

Page 106/681 | < Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >

• Multiple robots.txt for subdomains in rails

  - by Christopher

  I have a site with multiple subdomains and I want the named subdomains robots.txt to be different from the www one. I tried to use .htaccess, but the FastCGI doesn't look at it. So, I was trying to set up routes, but it doesn't seem that you can't do a direct rewrite since every routes needs a controller: map.connect '/robots.txt', :controller => ?, :path => '/robots.www.txt', :conditions => { :subdomain => 'www' } map.connect '/robots.txt', :controller => ?, :path => '/robots.club.txt' What would be the best way to approach this problem? (I am using the request_routing plugin for subdomains)

  Read the article

• How do I send signed emails from ActionMailer?

  - by James A. Rosen

  I'm using GMail as my SMTP server. I have that configuration working just fine: # config/initializers/action_mailer.rb: ActionMailer::Base.smtp_settings = { :tls => true, :address => "smtp.gmail.com", :port => "587", :domain => "www.example.org", :authentication => :login, :user_name => "[email protected]", :password => "it's a secret" } I also have a public/private RSA key pair in config/ssl/rsa.public and config/ssl/rsa.private. What do I do to sign the emails before shipping them off to GMail's SMTP server?

  Read the article

• Rails Plugins Load Path - I have ActiveRecord Models in a Plugin, How do I load them without Namespa

  - by viatropos

  I have a bunch of models for Oauth services, things like: TwitterToken GoogleToken There are OAuth versions and OpenID versions for some, so I decided to logically organize my gem like so: lib lib/my-auth-gem lib/my-auth-gem/oauth lib/my-auth-gem/oauth/tokens/google_token ... lib/my-auth-gem/openid/tokens/google_token ... I would like to be able to name my models GoogleToken, rather than MyAuthGem::Oauth::Tokens::GoogleToken. How do I do that? This will be for Rails 2.3+ and Rails 3.

  Read the article

• Why do i get a circular reference exception when calling to_json on an ActiveRecord::Relation

  - by midas06

  In Rails 3 (beta 3 on 1.8.7), when calling to_json on a relation i get a circular reference exception. Converting that relation to an array first, and THEN calling to_json works. Code That fails: Model.where().to_json (Where model is any model in your Rails 3 app) Code that works: Model.where().to_a.to_json This can be reproed on the console. Has anyone else run in to this? Is this expected?

  Read the article

• How Do I Prevent Rails From Treating Edit Fields_For Differently From New Fields_For

  - by James

  I am using rails3 beta3 and couchdb via couchrest. I am not using active record. I want to add multiple "Sections" to a "Guide" and add and remove sections dynamically via a little javascript. I have looked at all the screencasts by Ryan Bates and they have helped immensely. The only difference is that I want to save all the sections as an array of sections instead of individual sections. Basically like this: "sections" => [{"title" => "Foo1", "content" => "Bar1"}, {"title" => "Foo2", "content" => "Bar2"}] So, basically I need the params hash to look like that when the form is submitted. When I create my form I am doing the following: <%= form_for @guide, :url => { :action => "create" } do |f| %> <%= render :partial => 'section', :collection => @guide.sections %> <%= f.submit "Save" %> <% end %> And my section partial looks like this: <%= fields_for "sections[]", section do |guide_section_form| %> <%= guide_section_form.text_field :section_title %> <%= guide_section_form.text_area :content, :rows => 3 %> <% end %> Ok, so when I create the guide with sections, it is working perfectly as I would like. The params hash is giving me a sections array just like I would want. The problem comes when I want edit guide/sections and save them again because rails is inserting the id of the guide in the id and name of each form field, which is screwing up the params hash on form submission. Just to be clear, here is the raw form output for a new resource: <input type="text" size="30" name="sections[][section_title]" id="sections__section_title"> <textarea rows="3" name="sections[][content]" id="sections__content" cols="40"></textarea> And here is what it looks like when editing an existing resource: <input type="text" value="Foo1" size="30" name="sections[cd2f2759895b5ae6cb7946def0b321f1][section_title]" id="sections_cd2f2759895b5ae6cb7946def0b321f1_section_title"> <textarea rows="3" name="sections[cd2f2759895b5ae6cb7946def0b321f1][content]" id="sections_cd2f2759895b5ae6cb7946def0b321f1_content" cols="40">Bar1</textarea> How do I force rails to always use the new resource behavior and not automatically add the id to the name and value. Do I have to create a custom form builder? Is there some other trick I can do to prevent rails from putting the id of the guide in there? I have tried a bunch of stuff and nothing is working. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• How can I make sure the Sphinx daemon runs?

  - by Ethan

  I'm working on setting up a production server using CentOS 5.3, Apache, and Phusion Passenger (mod_rails). I have an app that uses the Sphinx search engine and the Thinking Sphinx gem. According to the Thinking Sphinx docs... If you actually want to search against the indexed data, then you’ll need Sphinx’s searchd daemon to be running. This can be controlled using the following tasks: rake thinking_sphinx:start rake ts:start rake thinking_sphinx:stop rake ts:stop What would be the best way to ensure that this takes place in production? I can deploy my app, then manually run rake thinking_sphinx:start, but I like to set things up so that if I have to bounce the server, everything will come back up. Should I put a call to that Rake task in an initializer? Or something in rc.local?

  Read the article

• What exactly is Arel in Rails 3.0?

  - by Will

  I understand that it is a replacement for ActiveRecord and that it uses objects instead of queries. But... why is this better? will objects/queries be "easier" to create? will it lead to more efficient SQL queries? will it be compatible with all major DB's? - I assume it will. will it be easier/harder to use with stored procedures?

  Read the article

• after_create :create a new line in DB

  - by Karl Entwistle

  Hey guys I was wondering if anyone could help me with an issue im having, basically id like to have Account.create after a PayPal notification is received, There is a simple cart model which corresponds to line_items within the cart so add_account_to_market would look like this in pseudo code def add_account_to_market if status == "Completed" find the line items(via cart_id) that correspond to the cart.id that just been paid create an account with user_id set to the current carts user id end end Ive never tried to do something like this in Rails and its not working, Ive been pulling my hair out all night trying to fix this, hopefully someone can help or point me in the right direction. Thanks :) class PaymentNotification < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :cart serialize :params after_create :mark_cart_as_purchased after_create :add_account_to_market private def mark_cart_as_purchased if status == "Completed" cart.update_attribute(:purchased_at, Time.now) cart.update_attribute(:paid, true) end end def add_account_to_market if status == "Completed" l = LineItem.find(:all, :conditions => "cart_id = '#{cart.id}'") for l.quantity Account.new(:user_id => cart.user_id) end end end end PS mark_cart_as_purchased method is working fine, its just the add_account_to_market im having issues with.

  Read the article

• Restricting Access in ERB code.

  - by LGFaler

  I am trying to build a CMS using ERB. Is there a way you can give ERB code read-only access to your models? For instance, I want to be able to load any information on my models (Model.all, Model.find_by_slug, Model.find_by_name, Model.other_model.name, etc...), but I don't want to be able to change this data. Can you disable ERB from executing commands that would make database changes (Model.save, Model.update, Model.delete, Model.destroy, etc.)???

  Read the article

• Acts as Tree with Multiple Models

  - by Joe

  I've got several models that I'd like to relate together hierarchically. For simplicity's sake, let's say I've got these three: class Group < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_tree has_many :users end class User < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_tree belongs_to :group has_many :posts end class Post < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_tree belongs_to :user end Under the current acts_as_tree, each node can individually can relate hierarchically to other nodes provided they are of the same type. What I'd like is to remove this restriction on type identity, so that SomePost.parent could have a User or a Post as its' parent, and that SomeUser.parent could have another user or a group as its parent. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• increase a field value based on the radio button selection

  - by sts

  <% count = 1 % <% for question in @questions % <%=count%. <%= question.title if question.title% <% for response in @response % <% if response.question_id.eql?(question.id) % <%=radio_button(count, :voting, :count_modification) % <%= response.nomination % <% end % <% end % <% count += 1 % <% end % This is my whole code to implment the survey in views. if i give the count as third argument in radio button i cant select answer for each question. i can select only one answer for the whole survey.

  Read the article

• How can I avoid running ActiveRecord callbacks?

  - by Ethan

  I have some models that have after_save callbacks. Usually that's fine, but in some situations, like when creating development data, I want to save the models without having the callbacks run. Is there a simple way to do that? Something akin to... Person#save( :run_callbacks => false ) or Person#save_without_callbacks I looked in the Rails docs and didn't find anything. However in my experience the Rails docs don't always tell the whole story. UPDATE I found a blog post that explains how you can remove callbacks from a model like this: Foo.after_save.clear I couldn't find where that method is documented but it seems to work.

  Read the article

• validates_uniqueness_of...limiting scope - How do I restrict someone from creating a certain number

  - by bgadoci

  I have the following code: class Like < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :site validates_uniqueness_of :ip_address, :scope => [:site_id] end Which limits a person from "liking" a site more than one time based on a remote ip request. Essentially when someone "likes" a site, a record is created in the Likes table and I use a hidden field to request and pass their ip address to the :ip_address column in the like table. With the above code I am limiting the user to one "like" per their ip address. I would like to limit this to a certain number for instance 10. My initial thought was do something like this: validates_uniqueness_of :ip_address, :scope => [:site_id, :limit => 10] But that doesn't seem to work. Is there a simple syntax here that will allow me to do such a thing?

  Read the article

• Rails 2.3: How to create this SQL into a named_scope

  - by randombits

  Having a bit of difficulty figuring out how to create a named_scope from this SQL query: select * from foo where id NOT IN (select foo_id from bar) AND foo.category = ? ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1; Category should be variable to change. What's the most efficient way the named_scope can be written for the problem above?

  Read the article

• Is it possible to use partials with the layout option inside of a controller?

  - by Janak

  When try I following code in a controller, the view renders without using the layout def xyz render :partial => 'platinum_home', :layout => 'platinum_layout' end But If I do the following inside the partial <% render(:layout => "platinum_layout") do %> blah blah blah <% end %> It works just fine, is the first example not possible using rails?

  Read the article

• Rails 3 routing - what's best practice?

  - by Mattias

  Hi guys, I'm trying out Rails, and I've stumbled across an issue with my routing. I have a controller named "Account" (singular), which should handle various settings for the currently logged in user. class AccountController < ApplicationController def index end def settings end def email_settings end end How would I set-up the routes for this in a proper manner? At the moment I have: match 'account(/:action)', :to => 'account', :as => 'account' This however does not automagically produce methods like account_settings_path but only account_path Is there any better practice of doing this? Remember the Account controller doesn't represent a controller for an ActiveModel. If this is in fact the best practice, how would I generate links in my views for the actions? url_to :controller => :account, :action => :email_settings ? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Dynamic dropdown search box

  - by glebm

  Are there any gems that would help me make a search box like the one for tags on stackoverflow? (Rails 2.3.5, required IE7 support and graceful no-script fall-back) P.S.: Do these boxes annoy you or do you think it's a good thing to have one?

  Read the article

• How to run only the latest/a given test using Rspec?

  - by marcgg

  Let's say I have a big spec file with 20 tests because I'm testing a large model and I had no other way of doing it : describe Blah it "should do X" do ... end it "should do Y" do ... end ... it "should do Z" do ... end end Running a single file is faster than running the whole test suite, but it's still pretty long. Is there a way to run the last one (ie the one at the end of the file, here "should do Z")? If this is not possible, is there a way to specify which test I want to run in my file ?

  Read the article

• require_owner code to limit controller actions not recognizing current user as owner

  - by bgadoci

  I am trying to restrict access to certain actions using a before_filter which seems easy enough. Somehow the ApplicationController is not recognizing that the current_user is the owner of the user edit action. When I take the filter off the controller correctly routes the current_user to their edit view information. Here is the code. Link to call edit action from user controller (views/questions/index.html.erb): <%= link_to "Edit Profile", edit_user_path(:current) %> ApplicationController (I am only posting the code that I think is affecting this but can post the whole thing if needed). class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base def require_owner obj = instance_variable_get("@#{controller_name.singularize.camelize.underscore}") # LineItem becomes @line_item return true if current_user_is_owner?(obj) render_error_message("You must be the #{controller_name.singularize.camelize} owner to access this page", root_url) return false end end and the before_filter class UsersController < ApplicationController before_filter :require_owner, :only => [:edit, :update, :destroy] #... end I simply get the rendering of the error message from the ApplicationController#require_owner action.

  Read the article

• What's the best way to refactor this Rails controller?

  - by Robert DiNicolas

  I'd like some advice on how to best refactor this controller. The controller builds a page of zones and modules. Page has_many zones, zone has_many modules. So zones are just a cluster of modules wrapped in a container. The problem I'm having is that some modules may have some specific queries that I don't want executed on every page, so I've had to add conditions. The conditions just test if the module is on the page, if it is the query is executed. One of the problems with this is if I add a hundred special module queries, the controller has to iterate through each one. I think I would like to see these module condition moved out of the controller as well as all the additional custom actions. I can keep everything in this one controller, but I plan to have many apps using this controller so it could get messy. class PagesController < ApplicationController # GET /pages/1 # GET /pages/1.xml # Show is the main page rendering action, page routes are aliased in routes.rb def show #-+-+-+-+-Core Page Queries-+-+-+-+- @page = Page.find(params[:id]) @zones = @page.zones.find(:all, :order => 'zones.list_order ASC') @mods = @page.mods.find(:all) @columns = Page.columns # restful params to influence page rendering, see routes.rb @fragment = params[:fragment] # render single module @cluster = params[:cluster] # render single zone @head = params[:head] # render html, body and head #-+-+-+-+-Page Level Json Conversions-+-+-+-+- @metas = @page.metas ? ActiveSupport::JSON.decode(@page.metas) : nil @javascripts = @page.javascripts ? ActiveSupport::JSON.decode(@page.javascripts) : nil #-+-+-+-+-Module Specific Queries-+-+-+-+- # would like to refactor this process @mods.each do |mod| # Reps Module Custom Queries if mod.name == "reps" @reps = User.find(:all, :joins => :roles, :conditions => { :roles => { :name => 'rep' } }) end # Listing-poc Module Custom Queries if mod.name == "listing-poc" limit = params[:limit].to_i < 1 ? 10 : params[:limit] PropertyEntry.update_from_listing(mod.service_url) @properties = PropertyEntry.all(:limit => limit, :order => "city desc") end # Talents-index Module Custom Queries if mod.name == "talents-index" @talent = params[:type] @reps = User.find(:all, :joins => :talents, :conditions => { :talents => { :name => @talent } }) end end respond_to do |format| format.html # show.html.erb format.xml { render :xml => @page.to_xml( :include => { :zones => { :include => :mods } } ) } format.json { render :json => @page.to_json } format.css # show.css.erb, CSS dependency manager template end end # for property listing ajax request def update_properties limit = params[:limit].to_i < 1 ? 10 : params[:limit] offset = params[:offset] @properties = PropertyEntry.all(:limit => limit, :offset => offset, :order => "city desc") #render :nothing => true end end So imagine a site with a hundred modules and scores of additional controller actions. I think most would agree that it would be much cleaner if I could move that code out and refactor it to behave more like a configuration.

  Read the article

• Rails: creating a custom data type, to use with generator classes and a bunch of questions related t

  - by Shyam

  Hi, After being productive with Rails for some weeks, I learned some tricks and got some experience with the framework. About 10 days ago, I figured out it is possible to build a custom data type for migrations by adding some code in the Table definition. Also, after learning a bit about floating points (and how evil they are) vs integers, the money gem and other possible solutions, I decided I didn't WANT to use the money gem, but instead try to learn more about programming and finding a solution myself. Some suggestions said that I should be using integers, one for the whole numbers and one for the cents. When playing in script/console, I discovered how easy it is to work with calculations and arrays. But, I am talking to much (and the reason I am, is to give some sufficient background). Right now, while playing with the scaffold generator (yes, I use it, because I like they way I can quickly set up a prototype while I am still researching my objectives), I like to use a DRY method. In my opinion, I should build a custom "object", that can hold two variables (Fixnum), one for the whole, one for the cents. In my big dream, I would be able to do the following: script/generate scaffold Cake name:string description:text cost:mycustom Where mycustom should create two integer columns (one for wholes, one for cents). Right now I could do this by doing: script/generate scaffold Cake name:string description:text cost_w:integer cost_c:integer I had also had an idea that would be creating a "cost model", which would hold two columns of integers and create a cost_id column to my scaffold. But wouldn't that be an extra table that would cause some kind of performance penalty? And wouldn't that be defy the purpose of the Cake model in the first place, because the costs are an attribute of individual Cake entries? The reason why I would want to have such a functionality because I am thinking of having multiple "costs" inside my rails application. Thank you for your feedback, comments and answers! I hope my message got through as understandable, my apologies for incorrect grammar or weird sentences as English is not my native language.

  Read the article

• Serving GZipped files from s3 using the Asset Pipeline

  - by kmurph79

  I have a Rails 3.2.3 app on Heroku and I'm using the asset_sync gem to serve my assets from s3, via these instructions. It works great, except s3 is not serving up the gzipped css/js files (just the uncompressed version). I've enabled gzip compression, to no avail: config.gzip_compression = true According to Using GZIP with html pages served from Amazon S3 I need to add meta-data to the s3 object for uploading. How would I do this in concert with the Asset Pipeline? Thank you for any help.

  Read the article

• Attachment_fu: can't disable :partition option

  - by Nathan Long

  I'm trying to use the Attachment_Fu plugin in a Rails project, and want to customize the paths where uploaded files are saved. The documentation shows this option: :partition # Whether to partiton files in directories like /0000/0001/image.jpg. Default is true. (The 0001 part is an ID from a table.) I don't want that, so I set the partition option to false, like so: class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base has_attachment :content_type => :image, :storage => :file_system, :max_size => 500.kilobytes, :resize_to => '320x200', :thumbnails => {:thumb => '100x100>' }, :partition => false validates_as_attachment end ...but the :partition => false option has no effect. Has anybody else encountered this problem? How did you fix it?

  Read the article

• Rails 3: Validate combined values

  - by Cimm

  In Rails 2.x you can use validations to make sure you have a unique combined value like this: validates_uniqueness_of :husband, :scope => :wife In the corresponding migration it could look like this: add_index :family, [:husband, :wife], :unique => true This would make sure the husband/wife combination is unique in the database. Now, in Rails 3 the validation syntax changed and the scope attribute seems to be gone. It now looks like: validates :husband, :presence => true Any idea how I can achieve the combined validation in Rails 3? The Rails 2.x validations still work in Rails 3 so I can still use the first example but it looks so "old", are there better ways?

  Read the article

• Rails engines extending functionality

  - by sinsiliux

  So I have an engine which defines some models and controllers. I want to be able to extend functionality of some models/controllers in my application (eg. adding methods) without loosing the original model/controller functionality from engine. Everywhere I read that you simply need to define controller with the same name in your application and Rails will automatically merge them, however it doesn't work for me and controller in engine is simply ignored (I don't think it's even loaded).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >