Search Results

Search found 9920 results on 397 pages for 'ruby prof'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 99/397 | < Previous Page | 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106  | Next Page >

  • Git + GitHub + Heroku

    - by Haseeb Khan
    Hi All, I am new to the world of Git, GitHub and Heroku. So far, I am enjoying this paradigm but coming from a background with SVN, things seems a bit complicated to me in the world of Git. I am facing a problem for which I am looking for a solution. Scenario: I have setup a new private project on GitHub. I forked the private project and now I have the following structure in my branch: /project /apps /my-apps /my-app-1 .... /my-app-2 .... /your-apps /your-app-1 .... /your-app-2 .... /plugins .... I can commit the code in my Fork on GitHub from my machine in any of the folders I want. Later on, these would be pulled into the master repository by the admin of the project. For every individual application in the apps folder, I have setup an app on Heroku which is a Git Repo in itself where I push my changes when I am done with the user stories from my local machine. In short, every app in the apps folder is a Rails App hosted on Heroku. Problem: What I want is that when I push my changes into Heroku, they can be committed into my project fork on GitHub as well, so, it also has the latest code all the time. The issue I see is that the code on Heroku is a Git Repo while the folders which I have on GitHub are part of a Repo. So far, what I have researched is that there is something known as Submodule in the Git World which can come to the rescue, however, I have not been able to find some newbie instructions. Can someone in the community be kind enough to share thoughts and help me to identify the solution of this problem? Thanks in advance. Regards, Haseeb Khan haseeb [AT] tkxel.com TkXel

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Changing the id parameter in Rails routing

    - by japancheese
    Hello, Using rails3 new routing system, is it possible to change the default :id parameter resources :users, :key => :username come out with the following routes /users/new /users/:username /users/:username/edit ...etc I'm asking because although the above example is simple, it would be really helpful to do in a current project I'm working on. Is it possible to change this parameter, and if not, is there a particular reason as to why not?

    Read the article

  • Rails Browser Detection Methods

    - by alvincrespo
    Hey Everyone, I was wondering what methods are standard within the industry to do browser detection in Rails? Is there a gem, library or sample code somewhere that can help determine the browser and apply a class or id to the body element of the (X)HTML? Thanks, I'm just wondering what everyone uses and whether there is accepted method of doing this? I know that we can get the user.agent and parse that string, but I'm not sure if that is that is an acceptable way to do browser detection. Also, I'm not trying to debate feature detection here, I've read multiple answers for that on StackOverflow, all I'm asking for is what you guys have done. [UPDATE] So thanks to faunzy on GitHub, I've sort of understand a bit about checking the user agent in Rails, but still not sure if this is the best way to go about it in Rails 3. But here is what I've gotten so far: def users_browser user_agent = request.env['HTTP_USER_AGENT'].downcase @users_browser ||= begin if user_agent.index('msie') && !user_agent.index('opera') && !user_agent.index('webtv') 'ie'+user_agent[user_agent.index('msie')+5].chr elsif user_agent.index('gecko/') 'gecko' elsif user_agent.index('opera') 'opera' elsif user_agent.index('konqueror') 'konqueror' elsif user_agent.index('ipod') 'ipod' elsif user_agent.index('ipad') 'ipad' elsif user_agent.index('iphone') 'iphone' elsif user_agent.index('chrome/') 'chrome' elsif user_agent.index('applewebkit/') 'safari' elsif user_agent.index('googlebot/') 'googlebot' elsif user_agent.index('msnbot') 'msnbot' elsif user_agent.index('yahoo! slurp') 'yahoobot' #Everything thinks it's mozilla, so this goes last elsif user_agent.index('mozilla/') 'gecko' else 'unknown' end end return @users_browser end

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Rails - Accessing model class methods from within ActiveRecord model

    - by aaronrussell
    I have a simple standalone model that doesn't inherit from ActiveRecord or anything else, called SmsSender. As the name suggests, it delivers text messages to an SMS gateway. I also have an ActiveRecord model called SmsMessage which has an instance method called deliver: def deliver SmsSender.deliver_message(self) self.update_attributes :status => "Sent" end The above is returning uninitialized constant SmsSender. I'm sure this is dead simple, but how can I access the SmsSender class from within my model?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Interpolation not working on Rails generator

    - by Tom
    For some reason the code I have included below does not interpolate the variables into the template. It simply copies the file over verbatim. I cannot figure out why. https://gist.github.com/60484f7b57b06b6eb3e3 The Rails version is 2.3.4. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106  | Next Page >