#492 content_tag should accept block using variable - Ruby on Rails

Type	To find
responsible:me	tickets assigned to you
tagged:"@high"	tickets tagged @high
milestone:next	tickets in the upcoming milestone
state:invalid	tickets with the state invalid
created:"last week"	tickets created last week
sort:number, importance, updated	tickets sorted by #, importance or updated
Combine keywords for powerful searching.
Use advanced searching »

This project is archived and is in readonly mode.

#492 ✓wontfix

content_tag should accept block using variable

Reported by ronin-23439 (at lighthouseapp) | June 26th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM

When using content_tag inside of a helper method, there is not currently a nice way of returning strings that contain more than one variable.

Examples:

content_tag(:p) do
string_one = fetch_value
string_two = fetch_value(2)
string_three = another_value
string_one + string_two + string_three
# or even [string_one, string_two, string_three].join
end

Code could be cleaner if you used the following approach, which I believe is also used in form_for.

content_tag(:p) do |content|
content << fetch_value
content << fetch_value(2)
content << another_value
end

Comments and changes to this ticket

You flagged this item as spam.
wildchild June 26th, 2008 @ 03:08 PM
Nice proposal! Where is a patch?
You flagged this item as spam.
ronin-23439 (at lighthouseapp) June 27th, 2008 @ 04:33 AM
I would have submitted one but I'm not sure how to do it without breaking compatibility with the standard use in the view.
You flagged this item as spam.
Clemens Kofler June 30th, 2008 @ 09:15 PM
I don't like this idea at all. If you feel that you have to do something complex like modifying the output multiple times, you should consider refactoring it out into a helper method.
You flagged this item as spam.
Glenn Powell August 10th, 2008 @ 09:04 AM
Clemens, I don't really understand what the problem is with this proposal. I don't see why this:
```
content_tag(:p) do |content|
  content << fetch_value
  content << fetch_value(2)
  content << another_value
end
```
would be any worse than what you have to do now which is:
```
content_tag(:p) do
  content = ""
  content << fetch_value
  content << fetch_value(2)
  content << another_value
  content
end
```
And I believe the point was that this whole call should in fact be in a helper method, as stated in the original post, but that it would be nicer to have the content variable passed to the content_tag block.
You flagged this item as spam.
Clemens Kofler August 10th, 2008 @ 01:24 PM
Glenn, I see your point but I still think the only way to keep it really clean is a helper method - and while I do care about style in the helper, I don't care that much that the two examples you gave would really make a difference for me. I didn't like the whole "view helpers now accept blocks" thing in the first place because IMO it clutters up the view (like when you use the block style with link_to), so I may be biased here ...
You flagged this item as spam.
Tom Lea August 13th, 2008 @ 02:20 PM
- Tag changed from “content_tag, enhancement, helper, view” to “content_tag, enhancement, helper, patch, view”
What about...
```
content_tag(:p) do
  returning("") do |content|
    content << fetch_value
    content << fetch_value(2)
    content << another_value
  end
end
```
...as a middle ground?

Either way, I've attached a patch to do what you describe... but I don't think it's quite what's needed yet.

Issue:

content += "fish" will simply loose the initial object reference. This would be a bit of a suprise for some users.

Fix:

Use a subclass of String that aliases += to << or similar.

Enhancement:

Allow something as follows:
```
content_tag(:div) do |div|
  my_text.each_line do |line|
    div.content_tag(:p, line)
  end
end
```
but if we allow this, we would also want to allow:
```
content_tag(:div) do |div|
  div.form_for(:magic) do |f|
    ...
  end
end
```
So we would end up having to proxy calls to all helpers... eugh!
- content_tag_with_block_param.diff 2.7 KB
DHH November 16th, 2008 @ 09:06 PM
- State changed from “new” to “wontfix”
I think this is probably too clever for its own good when it has to work in the view too.
You flagged this item as spam.
klkk May 23rd, 2011 @ 03:09 AM
- Importance changed from “” to “”
www.louisvuittonline.com