Rails Ruby on Rails → 3.0.2

Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  David Jones May 22nd, 2009 @ 03:54 AM

  +1 this makes a lot of sense. Since the child resource inherits the parent into their URL surely you'd expect the requirements to come across with it.

• 

  Jeremy Kemper May 4th, 2010 @ 06:48 PM

  • Milestone changed from “2.x” to “3.x”

  [bulk edit]

• 

  Andrew White June 27th, 2010 @ 09:33 PM

  • Assigned user set to “Andrew White”
  • State changed from “new” to “open”
  • Milestone cleared.
  • Importance changed from “” to “Medium”
• 

  Andrew White June 28th, 2010 @ 12:13 PM

  This almost works with the new router now:

    # Works
    resources :movies, :id => /\d+/ do
      resources :reviews
    end
  
    # Works
    resources :movies, :constraints => { :id => /\d+/ } do
      resources :reviews
    end
  
    # Works
    scope :id => /\d+/ do
      resources :movies do
        resources :reviews
      end
    end
  
    # Fails
    scope :constraints => { :id => /\d+/ } do
      resources :movies do
        resources :reviews
      end
    end
  
    # Fails
    constraints :id => /\d+/ do
      resources :movies do
        resources :reviews
      end
    end
  

  This is because :constraints is a separate hash in the scope. The attached patch merges the constraints from the scope into the resource options.

  • 0001-nested-resources-should-inheirit-constraints.diff 3.9 KB
• 

  Repository June 28th, 2010 @ 01:41 PM

  • State changed from “open” to “resolved”

  (from [e717631a8481935e8ac1eeb2445da341bdd4c868]) Merge :constraints from scope into resource options [#2694 state:resolved]

  Signed-off-by: José Valim jose.valim@gmail.com
  http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/e717631a8481935e8ac1eeb2445da3...

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Anthony Green August 29th, 2010 @ 10:22 PM

  I'm still seeing this bug in Actionpack (3.0.0.rc2) but it has been marked as resolved ?

• 

  Andrew White August 30th, 2010 @ 05:58 AM

  You are using the new router dsl, right? I'm asking because your example is using the old syntax (and it doesn't work using the old syntax). If you're using the old syntax then nothing will have changed as that's been kept the same deliberately to ease the migration of old apps.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Anthony Green August 30th, 2010 @ 09:04 AM

  Now I'm not sure if this is the same issue or a slight variation:
  

  resources :foo, :constraints => { :id => /\d+/ } do
  resources :bar end

  rake routes:

  edit_foo_bar GET    /foo/:foo_id/bar/:id/edit(.:format)          {:id=>/\d+/, :foo_id=>/\d+/, ...}
     foo_bar GET    /foo/:foo_id/bar/:id(.:format)               {:id=>/\d+/, :foo_id=>/\d+/, ...}
     foo_bar PUT    /foo/:foo_id/bar/:id(.:format)               {:id=>/\d+/, :foo_id=>/\d+/, ...}
     foo_bar DELETE /foo/:foo_id/bar/:id(.:format)               {:id=>/\d+/, :foo_id=>/\d+/, ...}
  

  here you can see both :foo_id and :id inherit the constraint. It should only be :foo_id

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Anthony Green August 30th, 2010 @ 09:11 AM

  Moments later I spot the typo:

  the nested resource should be declared singularly so resource not resources

  resources :foo, :constraints => { :id => /\d+/ } do
  resource :bar end

  is there a use case for

  resources :foo do
  resources :bar end

  or should it throw an error ?

• 

  Jeremy Kemper October 15th, 2010 @ 11:01 PM

  • Milestone set to “3.0.2”

  [bulk edit]