Search Results

Search found 18024 results on 721 pages for 'ruby enterprise edition'.

Page 377/721 | < Previous Page | 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384  | Next Page >

  • No action responded to search

    - by gazza58
    i have defined a method called 'search' in my RecipesController which is not private. in routes.rb i have the following: map.connect 'recipes/search', :controller => :recipes, :action => :search i get the following error: No action responded to search. Actions: ... where my method 'search' does not appear in the actions list. if i change the method name from 'search' to 'searchthings' and the action in routes to 'searchthings' then this seems to work. what am i missing here?

    Read the article

  • To use an api or store a large dataset in a rails app?

    - by Dave
    Hi all- I am working on a site that has the potential to need a LOT of space. Basically we hope to have every video game every created stored in a database along with an image of the cover. There are some api's out there that might be able to help, like GiantBomb's (www.giantbomb.com). We are trying to decide whether to store the data locally and if so where to find that comprehensive a list, or make calls to the api on demand. The problem with the latter is likely latency and also downtime problems. Assuming we want to store it locally here are the questions: 1) Where can we find this kind of data (yes, I looked on google, and no I couldnt find anything:)) 2) What is the most efficient way to encode and store the images? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Rails show view of one model with form for adding one child - nested attributes vs seperate controll

    - by SWR
    I have a basic two tiered model structure: Articles - Comments with one Article having many comments. What is the best way to add a "Add a comment" form to the bottom of the Articles show page? nested_attributes is overkill as I don't want to be able to edit all of the comments on the page, just to add one more. Is the best way even with Rails 2.3 still to make a separate controller and embed a form_for pointing to the other controller into the Articles show view? If so, how do I get validation errors to return to the article display page? I don't want to make a separate comment page/view... thanks

    Read the article

  • Activerecord default accessors & unusual requirements

    - by JP
    I have an ActiveRecord::Base class which needs to have a field that is automatically generated when a new instance is made. How should I go about doing this? By defining an initialize function? class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base # 'special' (integer) needs to be set to lowest unused number (above 0) # considering that random rows will be removed via other processes end This is as far as I've got! Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • cache_counter for habtm

    - by piemesons
    Hello How can use cache_counter in a habtm. For example a question has many tags and a tag can belong to many questions. question habtm tags Now i want to find out number of questions belonging to every tag. One way is counting everytime. But, in case of one_to_many i done same thing in this way. Like one question has many answers. then in answer model i specified belongs_to :question,:cache_counter=>true It solved my problem. So how to do the same in habtm.

    Read the article

  • How can I dynamically define the named route in a :partial in rails?

    - by Angela
    I have the following partial. It can be called from three different times in a view as follows: <%= render :partial => "contact_event", :collection => @contacts, :locals => {:event => email} %> Second time: <%= render :partial => "contact_event", :collection => @contacts, :locals => {:event => call} %> Third time: <%= render :partial => "contact_event", :collection => @contacts, :locals => {:event => letter} %> In each instance, call, email, letter refer to a specific instance of a Model Call, Email, or Letter. Here is the content of the partial "contact_event": <%= link_to_remote "Skip #{event} Remote", :url => skip_contact_email_url(contact_event, event), :update => "update-area-#{contact_event.id}-#{event.id}" %> <span id='update-area-<%="#{contact_event.id}-#{event.id}"%>'> </span> </p> My challenge: skip_contact_email_url only works when the event refers to an email. How can I dynamically define skip_contact_email_url to be skip_contact_letter_url if the local variable is letter? Even better, how can I have a single named route that would do the appropriate action?

    Read the article

  • Sorting an array of structs

    - by keruilin
    I have an array of structs called leaders. The struct class looks like this, for contextual info: class Leader < Struct.new(:rank, :user); end Two questions: How do I sort the array of structs by rank? How do I sort the array of structs by rank and by user.created_at?

    Read the article

  • How to balance load in a Apache + Mongrel application

    - by Will
    I was wondering if someone can explain how can a rails application be balanced. Two questions: Does it even help having separate rails applications reading from the same database in the same dedicated server? I understand Apache can balance load installing some extra modules? am i right? how can we accomplish this? (please provide explanation for dummies)

    Read the article

  • Double join with habtm in ActiveRecord

    - by Daniel Huckstep
    I have a weird situation involving the need of a double inner join. I have tried the query I need, I just don't know how to make rails do it. The Data Account (has_many :sites) Site (habtm :users, belongs_to :account) User (habtm :sites) Ignore that they are habtm or whatever, I can make them habtm or has_many :through. I want to be able to do @user.accounts or @account.users Then of course I should be able to do @user.accounts < @some_other_account And then have @user.sites include all the sites from @some_other_account. I've fiddled with habtm and has_many :through but can't get it to do what I want. Basically I need to end up with a query like this (copied from phpmyadmin. Tested and works): SELECT accounts.* FROM accounts INNER JOIN sites ON sites.account_id = accounts.id INNER JOIN user_sites ON sites.id = user_sites.site_id WHERE user_sites.user_id = 2 Can I do this? Is it even a good idea to have this double join? I am assuming it would work better if users had the association with accounts to begin with, and then worry about getting @user.sites instead, but it works better for many other things if it is kept the way it is (users <- sites).

    Read the article

  • Two part form in Rails

    - by samuel02
    I have some two nested resources, so that a Product can have many Bookings. On one page in a different controller I want to create a new booking and since it's a "general" booking I want a select menu to appear in a modal window where the user is able to pick one of the existing products and then go to the booking page. How can I do this? I have no problem setting up the modal and the "New booking" page is already there. What I need is a form that generates a list of existing products, picks the selected product id and then gets /products/:product_id/bookings/new . Any help appreciated! I realize my title does not describe my problem very good so better suggestions are highly welcome!

    Read the article

  • dependent: :destroy is not deleting dependencies from views

    - by jxdx
    Projects have many rooms. When I delete a project from the view, the associated rooms are not deleted. Rooms also have many products which should also be deleted when a project is deleted. Project class class Project < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user has_many :rooms, dependent: :destroy has_many :products, through: :rooms end Projects Controller class ProjectsController < ApplicationController def destroy @project = current_user.projects.find(params[:id]) if @project.delete redirect_to user_projects_path(@project.user) end end end Rooms Controller class RoomsController < ApplicationController def destroy @room = Room.find(params[:id]) if @room.delete redirect_to root_path end end The delete link in the projects show view. = link_to "Delete", project_room_path(room.project, room), method: :delete, data: { confirm: "Are you sure?" }, title: room.title, class: "btn btn-danger"

    Read the article

  • has_many :through default values

    - by David Lyod
    I have a need to design a system to track users memberships to groups with varying roles (currently three). class Group < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :users, :through => :memberships end class Role < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :users, :through => :memberships end class Membership < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user belongs_to :role belongs_to :group end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :groups, :through => :memberships end Ideally what I want is to simply set @group.users << @user and have the membership have the correct role. I can use :conditions to select data that has been manually inserted as such : :conditions => ["memberships.grouprole_id= ? ", Grouprole.find_by_name('user')] But when creating the membership to the group the grouprole_id is not being set. Is there a way to do this as at present I have a somewhat repetitive piece of code for each user role in my Group model.

    Read the article

  • form_for called in a loop overloads IDs and associates fields and labels incorrectly

    - by Katy Levinson
    Rails likes giving all of my fields the same IDs when they are generated in a loop, and this causes trouble. <% current_user.subscriptions.each do |s| %> <div class="subscription_listing"> <%= link_to_function s.product.name, "toggle_delay(this)"%> in <%= s.calc_time_to_next_arrival %> days. <div class="modify_subscription"> <%= form_for s, :url => change_subscription_path(s) do |f| %> <%= label_tag(:q, "Days to delay:") %> <%= text_field_tag(:query) %> <%= check_box_tag(:always) %> <%= label_tag(:always, "Apply delay to all future orders") %> <%= submit_tag("Change") %> <% end %> <%= link_to 'Destroy', s, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %> </div> </div> <% end %> Produces <div class="subscription_listing"> <a href="#" onclick="toggle_delay(this); return false;">Pasta</a> in 57 days. <div class="modify_subscription"> <form accept-charset="UTF-8" action="/subscriptions/7/change" class="edit_subscription" id="edit_subscription_7" method="post"><div style="margin:0;padding:0;display:inline"><input name="utf8" type="hidden" value="&#x2713;" /><input name="_method" type="hidden" value="put" /><input name="authenticity_token" type="hidden" value="s5LJffuzmbEMkSrez8b3KLVmDWN/PGmDryXhp25+qc4=" /></div> <label for="q">Days to delay:</label> <input id="query" name="query" type="text" /> <input id="always" name="always" type="checkbox" value="1" /> <label for="always">Apply delay to all future orders</label> <input name="commit" type="submit" value="Change" /> </form> <a href="/subscriptions/7" data-confirm="Are you sure?" data-method="delete" rel="nofollow">Destroy</a> </div> </div> <div class="subscription_listing"> <a href="#" onclick="toggle_delay(this); return false;">Gummy Bears</a> in 57 days. <div class="modify_subscription"> <form accept-charset="UTF-8" action="/subscriptions/8/change" class="edit_subscription" id="edit_subscription_8" method="post"><div style="margin:0;padding:0;display:inline"><input name="utf8" type="hidden" value="&#x2713;" /><input name="_method" type="hidden" value="put" /><input name="authenticity_token" type="hidden" value="s5LJffuzmbEMkSrez8b3KLVmDWN/PGmDryXhp25+qc4=" /></div> <label for="q">Days to delay:</label> <input id="query" name="query" type="text" /> <input id="always" name="always" type="checkbox" value="1" /> <label for="always">Apply delay to all future orders</label> <input name="commit" type="submit" value="Change" /> </form> <a href="/subscriptions/8" data-confirm="Are you sure?" data-method="delete" rel="nofollow">Destroy</a> </div> </div> And that's a problem because now no matter which "Apply delay to all future orders" I select it always very helpfully checks the first box for me. How can I override the ID without doing something ugly and un-rails-like?

    Read the article

  • Comparing lists of field-hashes with equivalent AR-objects.

    - by Tim Snowhite
    I have a list of hashes, as such: incoming_links = [ {:title => 'blah1', :url => "http://blah.com/post/1"}, {:title => 'blah2', :url => "http://blah.com/post/2"}, {:title => 'blah3', :url => "http://blah.com/post/3"}] And an ActiveRecord model which has fields in the database with some matching rows, say: Link.all => [<Link#2 @title='blah2' @url='...post/2'>, <Link#3 @title='blah3' @url='...post/3'>, <Link#4 @title='blah4' @url='...post/4'>] I'd like to do set operations on Link.all with incoming_links so that I can figure out that <Link#4 ...> is not in the set of incoming_links, and {:title => 'blah1', :url =>'http://blah.com/post/1'} is not in the Link.all set, like so: #pseudocode #incoming_links = as above links = Link.all expired_links = links - incoming_links missing_links = incoming_links - links expired_links.destroy missing_links.each{|link| Link.create(link)} One route I've tried: I'd rather not rewrite Array#- and such, and I'm okay with converting incoming_links to a set of unsaved Link objects; so I've tried overwriting hash eql? and so on in Link so that it ignored the id equality that AR::Base provides by default. But this is the only place this sort of equality should be considered in the application - in other places the Link#id default identity is required. Is there some way I could subclass Link and apply the hash, eql?, etc overwriting there? The other route I've tried is to pull out the attributes hash for each Link and doing a .slice('id',...etc) to prune the hashes down. But this requires writing seperate methods for keeping track of the Link objects while doing set operations on the hashes, or writing seperate Collection classes to wrap the incoming_links hash-list and Link-list which seems a bit overkill. What is the best way to design this interaction? Extra credit for cleanliness.

    Read the article

  • update_attributes with validations

    - by Timothy
    I have the following contrived example in Rails. I want to make sure the Garage model has at least one car with this. class Garage has_many :cars validate :at_least_one_car def at_least_one_car if cars.count == 0 errors.add_to_base("needs at least one car") end end end class Car belongs_to :garage end In my form I have a remove button that will set the hidden field _delete to true for an existing car. Let's say there is only one car object and I "delete" it in my form, if I do garage_object.update_attributes(params[:garage]), it will delete the car model and make the garage object invalid. Is there to a way to make it not update the attributes if it will make the model invalid?

    Read the article

  • Mocking view helpers with rspec-rails 2.0.0.beta.8

    - by snl
    I am trying to mock a view helper with rspec2. The old way of doing this throws an error, complaining the template object is not defined: template.should_receive(:current_user).and_return(mock("user")) Am I missing something here, or is this not implemented in rspec2 (yet)?

    Read the article

  • Writing a simple incrementer counter in rails

    - by Trip
    For every Card, I would like to attach a special number to them that increments by one. I assume I can do this all in the controller. def create @card = Card.new(params[:card]) @card.SpecNum = @card.SpecNum ++ ... end Or. I can be blatantly retarded. And maybe the best bet is to add an auto-incremement table to mysql. The problem is the number has to start at a specific number, 1020. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to properly design a simple favorites and blocked table?

    - by Nils Riedemann
    Hey, i am currently writing a webapp in rails where users can mark items as favorites and also block them. I came up two ways and wondered which one is more common/better way. 1. Separate join tables Would it be wise to have 2 tables for this? Like: users_favorites - user_id - item_id users_blocked - user_id - item_id 2. single table users_marks (or so) - users_id - item_id - type (["fav", "blk"]) Both ways seem to have advantages. Which one would you use and why?

    Read the article

  • Rails Routes Mappings

    - by rdasxy
    I'm a rails newbie, and I have a controller called resource_links that I've mapped to resources: resources :resources, :as => :resource_links, :controller => :resource_links And this works (basically /resources works as /resource_links). However, trying to go to /resources/tags does not work. To get around this, I added more mappings as: match 'resource_links/tag/:tag(.:format)' => 'resource_links#tag', :via => :get, :as => 'resource_links_tagged', :constraints => {:tag => /.*/} match 'resource_links/tags' => 'resource_links#tags', :via => :get, :as => 'resource_links_tags' Is there any way I can get /resources/tags to be mapped to /resource_links/tag?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384  | Next Page >