This project is archived and is in readonly mode.
[PATCH] respond_with with array of resources not working
There is a problem with respond_with arguments. Those examples
behaves completely different (second one is working
incorrect):
respond_with(:admin, @post)
respond_with([:admin, @post])
When there is passed array of resources, in this place, variable resources looks like
this: [[arg1, arg2]] which is wrong. After writing a patch, one
other test is falling, however I don't know what should be the
correct behaviour there.
So my question is: what should look like response from api request
(i.e. xml) of respond_with([:admin, @post]) - should there be only
@post included or maybe :admin also?
Now it returns both arguments, however code says that this should
be single resource (not resources), but now resource is mistakenly
taken as passed array.
I'm submiting patches with respond_with fix and test for it - after applying them, this test is falling.
-
Wojciech WnętrzakAdditional patch with test
-
Wojciech Wnętrzak
I forgot to add require 'active_support/core_ext/array/wrap' for patch with fix.
This patch should be used instead. -
José Valim- State changed from new to invalid
- Assigned user set to José Valim
- Importance changed from to Low
Rails allows you to use respond_with([@admin, @post]) but Rails interprets it as a collection. The same as if you do: respond_with(Article.all).
That said, if you want to say you are redirecting to a nested resource, you have to do: respond_with(@admin, @post). Therefore, [[arg1, arg2]] is not wrong and the test that fails after your change is correct.
-
Wojciech Wnętrzak
One more question:
Let's say we have responder in create action like:
And object @post has errors - it wont be detected and instead of 422, we get 301 - is it intentional?respond_with([:admin, @post])Also note about similarity of method respond_with to polymorphic_url is little misleading - there we can pass only array if we need nesting.
Documentation -
José Valim
Yes, it is intentional in the sense you should use respond_with(@admin, @post) instead. I agree with you about the note being misleading, I have just removed it. Thanks!