Ruby on Rails conditional routing

Question

I have a site listing many jobs, but I also want each account to be able to access its jobs in one place. Thus, I am using these routes:

map.resources :jobs
map.resource :account, :has_many => :jobs

This gets me URLs like localhost/jobs/ and localhost/account/jobs. However, both seem to render JobsController::index. How can I either make a conditional in the index action (how do I access whether account/jobs or just jobs was specified in the URL?) or change the account route to render a different action? What's the proper way to do this?

Do you have one or multiple accounts? The statement "I also want each account..." suggests multiple, but "map.resource :account" suggests one. — avaynshtok
– avaynshtok, Commented Nov 18, 2009 at 21:18

bantic · Accepted Answer · 2009-11-18 20:52:36Z

3

You can use a block when creating your routes, and then pass a :controller parameter, like so

map.resource :account do |account|
  # If you have a special controller 'AccountJobsController'
  account.resources :jobs, :controller => "account_jobs"
end

It may be cleaner for you to put your controllers into a directory structure, and then you can reference them in a nested way. For example:

map.resource :account do |account|
  account.resources :jobs, :controller => "accounts/jobs"
end

If you use the above snippet, you should then create a controller in app/controllers/accounts/jobs_controller.rb, which is defined like so:

class Account::JobsController < ApplicationController
  ##
  ## etc.
  ##
end

You can always use rake routes to check which routes have been generated and which controllers they'll use.

edited Nov 18, 2009 at 20:52

answered Nov 18, 2009 at 20:36

bantic

4,9644 gold badges31 silver badges34 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

EmFi · Accepted Answer · 2009-11-18 19:05:03Z

2

Adding a requirement to the resource definition allows you to pass extra parameters

map.resources :jobs
map.resource :account, :has_many => :jobs, :requirements => {:account => true}

Then params[:account] will be set if the routing url was 'http://www.mysite.tld/account/jobs' and unset if it it was 'http://www.mysite.tld/jobs'

As with all other restful routing the action depends on the context.

GET requests without an id route to index.
GET requests with an id route to show
POST requests route to create
PUT requests route to update
DELETE requests route to destroy.

answered Nov 18, 2009 at 19:05

EmFi

23.5k3 gold badges60 silver badges68 bronze badges

Comments

avaynshtok · Accepted Answer · 2009-11-18 19:01:41Z

0

If you run "rake routes" you should see something like this

account_jobs  GET    /accounts/:account_id/jobs/:job_id    {:controller => 'jobs', :action => 'index'}

This means when your action is called via the /account/jobs route you should have an :account_id parameter. You can then do your logic switch based on the existence of this param:

if params[:account_id].nil?
   ...
else
   ...
end

answered Nov 18, 2009 at 19:01

avaynshtok

2,5191 gold badge16 silver badges14 bronze badges

4 Comments

avaynshtok Over a year ago

I just did this on a clean rails project to validate, and yes, it does work this way. routes.rb: ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map| map.resources :jobs map.resources :accounts, :has_many => :jobs "rake routes" account_jobs GET /accounts/:account_id/jobs(.:format) {:controller=>"jobs", :action=>"index"} get localhost:3000/accounts/123/jobs from log: Processing JobsController#index (for 127.0.0.1 at 2009-11-18 11:24:22) [GET] Parameters: {"account_id"=>"123"}

avaynshtok Over a year ago

Yikes, sorry for the (non) formatting. My point being... what is the meaning of "this way" in your comment?

EmFi Over a year ago

The question specifies account as a resource with map.resource. Meaning there is only one of them. The route you mention is not created for resource that has many resources. But it would have been if account was defined with map.resources.

avaynshtok Over a year ago

Ah! You're absolutely right; I totally missed that it was the singular form of resource in the question. The "each account" bit threw me off.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Ruby on Rails conditional routing

3 Answers 3

Comments

Comments

4 Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

3 Answers 3

Comments

Comments

4 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related