Search Results

Search found 9853 results on 395 pages for 'ruby datamapper'.

Page 313/395 | < Previous Page | 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320  | Next Page >

  • Rails object based permission/authorization engine?

    - by Vlad
    Hi I want to add "Sharing documents" feature to my app, like in google documents service. As i see: User can: can list/view/create/edit/delete own documents share own document to everyone - its a public document share own document to another user with read-only access share own document to another user with read-write access view list of own documents and users to whom he gave permission to read and write view list of foreign documents view/edit foreign document with read/write permissions Please tell me, which permission/authorization solution is preffered for my task?

    Read the article

  • Need help to understand :source option of has_one/has_many through of Rails

    - by Tri Vuong
    Hi Please help me in understanding the :source option of has_one/has_many through association. The Rails api explanation makes very little sense to me "Specifies the source association name used by has_many :through queries. Only use it if the name cannot be inferred from the association. has_many :subscribers, :through = :subscriptions will look for either :subscribers or :subscriber on Subscription, unless a :source is given. " Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Rails, making certain multiparameter attributes optional?

    - by Joseph Silvashy
    Is there a method already part of Rails for making certain parameters option when part of a multiparameter attribute, for example say I'm prompting a user for their birthday, when saved the has may look like this: "birthday(2i)"=>"8", "birthday(3i)"=>"17", "birthday(1i)"=>"1980"}, ... But the issue arises when say I want to allow the user to just provide their month and day, making the year optional, how would this work being a datetime object, I'm assuming you can't do this as a date object... but any ideas would be helpful. Happy new year.

    Read the article

  • Unusual RJS error

    - by rrb
    Hi, I am getting the following error in my RoR application: RJS error: TypeError: element is null Element.update("notice", "Comment Posted"); Element.update("allcomments", "\n\n\n \n\n waht now?\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n asdfasdfa\n \n\n \n\n asdfasdf\n \n\n\n\n\n"); But when I hit the refresh button, I can see my partial updated. Here's my code: show_comments View: <table> <% comments.each do |my_comment| %> <tr> <td><%=h my_comment.comment%></td> </tr> <% end %> </table> show View: <div class="wrapper"> <div class="rescale"> <div class="img-main"> <%= image_tag @deal.photo.url %> </div> </div> <div class="description"> <p class ="description_content"> <%=h @deal.description %> </p> </div> </div> <p> <b>Category:</b> <%=h @deal.category %> </p> <p> <b>Base price:</b> <%=h @deal.base_price %> </p> <%#*<p>%> <%#*<b>Discount:</b>%> <%#=h @deal.discount %> <%#*</p>%> <%= link_to 'Edit', edit_deal_path(@deal) %> | <%= link_to 'Back', deals_path %> <p> <%= render :partial=>'deal_comments', :locals=>{ :comments=>Comment.new(:deal_id=>@deal.id)} %> </p> <div id="allcomments"> <%= render :partial=>'show_comments', :locals=>{ :comments=>Comment.find(@deal.comments)} %> </div> Controller: def create @comment = Comment.new(params[:comment]) render :update do |page| if @comment.save page.replace_html 'notice', 'Comment Posted' else page.replace_html 'notice', 'Something went wrong' end page.replace_html 'allcomments', :partial=> 'deals/show_comments', :locals=>{:comments=> @comment.deal.comments} end end def show_comments @deal = Deal.find(params[:deal_id]) render :partial=> "deals/show_comments", :locals=>{:comments=>@deal.comments} end end

    Read the article

  • confusion using rjs for a link_to_remote

    - by odpogn
    My application layout contains a navigation div, and a content div constructed as a partial. I want to use ajax so that whenever a person clicks on a link in the navigation div, the contents of that page renders in the content div without a refresh. I'm confused on how to properly do this... any help for a rails noob??? thanks in advance~ application.html.erb <body> <div id="container"> <%= render 'layouts/header' %> <%= render 'layouts/content'%> <%= render 'layouts/footer' %> </div> </body> _header.html.erb <%= link_to_remote "Home", :url => { :controller => "pages", :action => "home" } %> _content.html.erb <div id="content"> <%= yield %> </div> pages_controller.rb def home @title = "Home" respond_to do |format| format.js end end home.rjs page.replace_html :container, :partial => 'layouts/content'

    Read the article

  • basic database design table on rails

    - by runcode
    I am confuse on a concept. I am doing this on rails. Is that Entity set equal to a table in the database? Is that Relationship set equal to a table in the database? Let say we have Entity set "USER" and Entity set "POST" and Entity set "COMMENT" User- can post many posts and comments as they want Post- belong to users Comments-belong to posts ,users, so comment is weak entity. SCHEMA ====== USER -id -name POST -id -user_id(FK) -comment_id (FK) COMMENT -id -user_id (FK) -post_id (FK) so USER,POST,COMMENT are tables I think. And what else is a table? And do I need a table for the relationship??

    Read the article

  • Rails: Pass association object to the View

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Model Item belongs_to User. In my controller I have code like this: @items = Item.find(:all) I need to have a corresponding User models for each item in my View templates. it works in controller(but not in View template): @items.each { |item| item.user } But manual looping just to build associations for View template kinda smells. How can I do this not in a creepy way?

    Read the article

  • What happens when modifying Gemfile.lock directly?

    - by Mik378
    Since the second time of bundle install execution, dependencies are loaded from Gemfile.lock when Gemfile isn't changed. But I wonder how detection of changes is made between those two files. For instance, if I'm adding a new dependency directly into Gemfile.lock without adding it into Gemfile (as opposed to the best practice since Gemfile.lock is auto-generated from Gemfile), would a bundle install consider Gemfile as changed ? Indeed, does bundle install process compares the whole Gemfile and Gemfile.lock trees in order to detect changes? If it is, even if I'm adding a dependency directly to Gemfile.lock, Gemfile would be detected as changed (since different) and would re-erase Gemfile.lock (so losing the added dependency...) What is the process of bundle install since the launch for the second time ? To be more clear, my question is: Are changes based only from Gemfile ? That means bundler would keep a Gemfile snapshot of every bundle install execution number N and merely compares it to the bundle install execution N+1 ? Or none snapshot are created in bundler memory and bundler makes a comparison with Gemfile.lock each time to detect if Gemfile must be considered as changed.

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to generate an API reference document using a Rails routes.rb file?

    - by RNHurt
    I am trying to document the API for my Rails application and I can't help but wonder if there is a better way to generate an XML file based on my routes.rb file. I'm envisioning something similar to the output of rake routes but in a more friendly, XML type format. Corey has some interesting ideas about using reflection/introspection on the routes file here but it's not quite what I need. Please tell me this is a solved problem and I'm not the first one to think of this. :)

    Read the article

  • Returning a 1x1 .gif as a response in Rails

    - by Avishai
    Hi, I'm building a Rails app that does conversion tracking on outside sites. I'd like to allow users to paste an image tag in their conversion pages (like AdWords), and whenever that image is requested, a conversion registers in my app. respond_to do |format| if @conversion.save flash[:notice] = 'Conversion was successfully created.' format.html { redirect_to(@conversion) } format.xml { render :xml => @conversion, :status => :created, :location => @conversion } format.js { render :json => @conversion, :status => :created } format.gif { head :status => :ok } else format.html { render :action => "new" } format.xml { render :xml => @conversion.errors, :status => :unprocessable_entity } end end This way, the browser gets a non-existent .gif image. Is there a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Rails - Accessing Model Attributes in Forms

    - by stringo0
    Hi, How do I access a model's parent's attribute in a form? For example, for the following form for answer, I want to access answer.question.text and use that for the question - how do I do this? Thanks! <% form_for :answers do |ans| %> <%= ans.label :question, "Question" %> <%= ans.text_field :value %>

    Read the article

  • Rspec and Rails 3 - Problem Validating Nested Attribute Collection Size

    - by MunkiPhD
    When I create my Rspec tests, I keep getting a validation of false as opposed to true for the following tests. I've tried everything and the following is the measly code that I have now - so if it's waaaaay wrong, that's why. class Master < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :name, :specific_size # Associations ---------------------- has_many :line_items accepts_nested_attributes_for :line_items, :allow_destroy => true, :reject_if => lambda { |a| a[:item_id].blank? } # Validations ----------------------- validates :name, :presence => true, :length => {:minimum => 3, :maximum => 30} validates :specific_size, :presence => true, :length => {:minimum => 4, :maximum => 30} validate :verify_items_count def verify_items_count if self.line_items.size < 2 errors.add(:base, "Not enough items to create a master") end end end And here it the items model: class LineItem < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :specific_size, :other_item_type_id # Validations -------------------- validates :other_item_type_id, :presence => true validates :master_id, :presence => true validates :specific_size, :presence => true # Associations --------------------- belongs_to :other_item_type belongs_to :master end The RSpec Tests: before(:each) do @master_lines = [] @master_lines << LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 1, :master_id => 2, :specific_size => 1) @master_lines << LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 2, :master_id => 2, :specific_size => 1) @attr = {:name => "Some Master", :specific_size => "1 giga"} end it "should create a new instance given a valid name and specific size" do @master = Master.create(@attr) line_item_one = @master.line_items.build(:other_item_type_id => 1, :specific_size => 1) line_item_two = @master.line_items.build(:other_item_type_id => 2, :specific_size => 2) @master.line_items.size === 2 @master.should be_valid end it "should have at least two items to be valid" do master = Master.new(:name => "test name", :specific_size => "1 mega") master_item_one = LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 1, :specific_size => 2) master_item_two = LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 2, :specific_size => 1) master.line_items << master_item_one master.should_not be_valid master.line_items << master_item_two master.line_items.size.should === 2 master.should be_valid end I'm very new to Rspec and Rails - and I've been failing at this for the past couple of hours. Thanks for any help in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to update attributes without validation

    - by Brian Roisentul
    I've got a model with its validations, and I found out that I can't update an attribute without validating the object before. I already tried to add on => :create syntax at the end of each validation line, but I got the same results. My announcement model have the following validations: validates_presence_of :title validates_presence_of :description validates_presence_of :announcement_type_id validate :validates_publication_date validate :validates_start_date validate :validates_start_end_dates validate :validates_category validate :validates_province validates_length_of :title, :in => 6..255, :on => :save validates_length_of :subtitle, :in => 0..255, :on => :save validates_length_of :subtitle, :in => 0..255, :on => :save validates_length_of :place, :in => 0..50, :on => :save validates_numericality_of :vacants, :greater_than_or_equal_to => 0, :only_integer => true validates_numericality_of :price, :greater_than_or_equal_to => 0, :only_integer => true My rake task does the following: task :announcements_expiration => :environment do announcements = Announcement.expired announcements.each do |a| #Gets the user that owns the announcement user = User.find(a.user_id) puts a.title + '...' a.state = 'deactivated' if a.update_attributes(:state => a.state) puts 'state changed to deactivated' else a.errors.each do |e| puts e end end end This throws all the validation exceptions for that model, in the output. Does anybody how to update an attribute without validating the model?

    Read the article

  • Polymorphic association inserts 0 instead of raising error when column is misconfigured as Integer

    - by zetetic
    Here's one that stumped me for a while, though in retrospect it should have been obvious. I was getting the error message NoMethodError: undefined method `constantize' for 0:Fixnum when accessing a model through a polymorphic association. Turns out the table on the belongs_to side of the association had an integer type column instead of a string. Easily fixed, but it seems like Rails ought to raise an error in this situation -- instead it happily adds the row with 0 in the type column.

    Read the article

  • Checking for duplicates with nested forms

    - by Cyrus
    I'm making a rails 3.2.9 app that allows users to create pages and they can embed youtube videos through a nested form. I'm trying to figure out how to make it so that I can prevent duplicate video records from being stored in my db. So I have a Video model that takes the youtube url and just parses out the video id and stores that instead of the full user submitted youtube url, which may have extraneous url query parameters. So here's the situation that I'm trying to figure out: There's page1 with video1 - url: 123 and video2 - url: abc Then another user creates page2 and submits video3 - url: def and video4 - url: 123 Currently each page has_many videos. But I think I should change it to a many-to-many relationship. But how would I make it so that the url submitted as video4 in the nested form points to video1? Also I how would I make a nested form that creates objects that are connected through a join table?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to route heroku-rails-app to a subdirectory of my custom domain?

    - by ernd enson
    I want to setup a rails app on heroku that is part of a website. The website which is hosted on a different server explains the usage of the app, shows a tour, plans, contains a blog on related stuff and so on. I want to route to my_domain/app and the app should respond to that url. The custom_domain add-on doesnt allow to enter directories. How can I configure that or how would you realize that scenario?

    Read the article

  • When an active_record is saved, is it saved before or after its associated object(s)?

    - by SeeBees
    In rails, when saving an active_record object, its associated objects will be saved as well. But has_one and has_many association have different order in saving objects. I have three simplified models: class Team < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :players has_one :coach end class Player < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :team validates_presence_of :team_id end class Coach < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :team validates_presence_of :team_id end I use the following code to test these models: t = Team.new team.coach = Coach.new team.save! team.save! returns true. But in another test: t = Team.new team.players << Player.new team.save! team.save! gives the following error: > ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: > Validation failed: Players is invalid I figured out that when team.save! is called, it first calls player.save!. player needs to validate the presence of the id of the associated team. But at the time player.save! is called, team hasn't been saved yet, and therefore, team_id doesn't yet exist for player. This fails the player's validation, so the error occurs. But on the other hand, team is saved before coach.save!, otherwise the first example will get the same error as the second one. So I've concluded that when a has_many bs, a.save! will save bs prior to a. When a has_one b, a.save! will save a prior to b. If I am right, why is this the case? It doesn't seem logical to me. Why do has_one and has_many association have different order in saving? Any ideas? And is there any way I can change the order? Say I want to have the same saving order for both has_one and has_many. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • :include and table aliasing

    - by dondo
    I'm suffering from a variant of the problem described here: ActiveRecord assigns table aliases for association joins fairly unpredictably. The first association to a given table keeps the table name. Further joins with associations to that table use aliases including the association names in the path... but it is common for app developers not to know about [other] joins at coding time. In my case I'm being bitten by a toxic mix of has_many and :include. Many tables in my schema have a state column, and the has_many wants to specify conditions on that column: has_many :foo, :conditions => {:state => 1}. However, since the state column appears in many tables, I disambiguate by explicitly specifying the table name: has_many :foo, :conditions => "this_table.state = 1". This has worked fine until now, when for efficiency I want to add an :include to preload a fairly deep tree of data. This causes the table to be aliased inconsistently in different code paths. My reading of the tickets referenced above is that this problem is not and will not be fixed in Rails 2.x. However, I don't see any way to apply the suggested workaround (to specify the aliased table name explicitly in the query). I'm happy to specify the table alias explicitly in the has_many statement, but I don't see any way to do so. As such, the workaround doesn't appear applicable to this situation (nor, I presume, in many 'named_scope' scenarios). Is there a viable workaround?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320  | Next Page >