Search Results

Search found 10455 results on 419 pages for 'ruby on rails 4'.

Page 315/419 | < Previous Page | 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322  | Next Page >

  • Has any one used client_side_validations gem with Chosen.js dropdown?

    - by Abid
    I am using chosen.js (http://harvesthq.github.com/chosen/). I was wondering if anyone has been able to use chosen select boxes and client_side_validations together. The issue is that when we use chosen it hides the original select element and renders its own dropdown instead, and when we focus out the validation isn't called and also when the validation message is shown it is shown with the original select element so positioning of the error isnt also correct. What could be a good way to handle this, My be we can change some code inside ActionView::Base.field_error_proc which currently looks something like ActionView::Base.field_error_proc = Proc.new do |html_tag, instance| unless html_tag =~ /^<label/ %{<div class="field_with_errors">#{html_tag}<label for="#{instance.send(:tag_id)}" class="message">#{instance.error_message.first}</label></div>}.html_safe else %{<div class="field_with_errors">#{html_tag}</div>}.html_safe end end Any ideas ? Edit 1: I have the following solution that is working for me now. applied a class "chzn-dropdown" to all my selects that were being displayed by chosen used the following callback provided by client_side_validations Gem clientSideValidations.callbacks.element.fail = function(element, message, callback) { if (element.data('valid') !== false) { if(element.hasClass('dropdown')){ chzn_element = $('#'+element.attr('id')+'_chzn'); console.log(chzn_element); chzn_element.append(""+message+""); } else{ callback(); } } } Thanks

    Read the article

  • How do I fix this NameError?

    - by Kyle Kaitan
    I want to use the value v inside of an instance method on the metaclass of a particular object: v = ParserMap[kind][:validation] # We want to use this value later. s = ParserMap[kind][:specs] const_set(name, lambda { p = Parser.new(&s) # This line starts a new scope... class << p define_method :validate do |opts| v.call(self, opts) # => NameError! The `class` keyword above # has started a new scope and we lost # old `v`. end end p }) Unfortunately, the class keyword starts a new scope, so I lose the old scope and I get a NameError. How do I fix this?

    Read the article

  • How to cache pages using background jobs ?

    - by Alexandre
    Definitions: resource = collection of database records, regeneration = processing these records and outputting the corresponding html Current flow: Receive client request Check for resource in cache If not in cache or cache expired, regenerate Return result The problem is that the regeneration step can tie up a single server process for 10-15 seconds. If a couple of users request the same resource, that could result in a couple of processes regenerating the exact same resource simultaneously, each taking up 10-15 seconds. Wouldn't it be preferrable to have the frontend signal some background process saying "Hey, regenerate this resource for me". But then what would it display to the user? "Rebuilding" is not acceptable. All resources would have to be in cache ahead of time. This could be a problem as the database would almost be duplicated on the filesystem (too big to fit in memory). Is there a way to avoid this? Not ideal, but it seems like the only way out. But then there's one more problem. How to keep the same two processes from requesting the regeneration of a resource at the same time? The background process could be regenerating the resource when a frontend asks for the regeneration of the same resource. I'm using PHP and the Zend Framework just in case someone wants to offer a platform-specific solution. Not that it matters though - I think this problem applies to any language/framework. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Incorporating Devise Authentication into an already existing user structure?

    - by Kevin
    I have a fully functional authentication system with a user table that has over fifty columns. It's simple but it does hash encryption with salt, uses email instead of usernames, and has two separate kinds of users with an admin as well. I'm looking to incorporate Devise authentication into my application to beef up the extra parts like email validation, forgetting passwords, remember me tokens, etc... I just wanted to see if anyone has any advice or problems they've encountered when incorporating Devise into an already existing user structure. The essential fields in my user model are: t.string :first_name, :null => false t.string :last_name, :null => false t.string :email, :null => false t.string :hashed_password t.string :salt t.boolean :is_userA, :default => false t.boolean :is_userB, :default => false t.boolean :is_admin, :default => false t.boolean :active, :default => true t.timestamps For reference sake, here's the Devise fields from the migration: t.database_authenticatable :null => false t.confirmable t.recoverable t.rememberable t.trackable That eventually turn into these actual fields in the schema: t.string "email", :default => "", :null => false t.string "encrypted_password", :limit => 128, :default => "", :null => false t.string "password_salt", :default => "", :null => false t.string "confirmation_token" t.datetime "confirmed_at" t.datetime "confirmation_sent_at" t.string "reset_password_token" t.string "remember_token" t.datetime "remember_created_at" t.integer "sign_in_count", :default => 0 t.datetime "current_sign_in_at" t.datetime "last_sign_in_at" t.string "current_sign_in_ip" t.string "last_sign_in_ip" t.datetime "created_at" t.datetime "updated_at" What do you guys recommend? Do I just remove email, hashed_password, and salt from my migration and put in the 5 Devise migration fields and everything will be OK or do I need to do something else?

    Read the article

  • RESTful membership

    - by FoxDemon
    I am currentlly trying to design a RESTful MembershipsController. The controller action update is used only for promoting, banning, approving,... members. To invoke the update action the URL must contain a Parameter called type with the appropriate value. I am not too sure if that is really RESTful design. Should I rather introduce sepearate actions for promoting,... members? class MembershipsController < ApplicationController def update @membership= Membership.find params[:id] if Membership.aasm_events.keys.include?(params[:type].to_sym) #[:ban, :promote,...] @membership.send("#{params[:type]}!") render :partial => 'update_membership' end end end

    Read the article

  • Please suggest some alternative to Drupal

    - by abovesun
    Drupal propose completely different approach in web development (comparing with RoR like frameworks) and it is extremely good from development speed perspective. For example, it is quite easy to clone 90% of stackoverflow functionality using Drupal. But it has several big drawbacks: it is f''cking slow (100-400 requests per page) db structure very complicated, need at least 2 tables for easy content (entity) type, CCK fields very easy generate tons of new db tables anti-object oriented, rather aspect-oriented bad "view" layer implementation, no strange forward layouts and so on. After all this items I can say I like Drupal, but I would like something same, but more elegant and more object oriented. Probably something like http://drupy.net/ - drupal emulation on the top of django. P.S. I wrote this question not for new holy word flame, just write if you know alternative that uses something similar approach.

    Read the article

  • Virgin STI Help

    - by Mutuelinvestor
    I am working on a horse racing application and I'm trying to utilize STI to model a horse's connections. A horse's connections is comprised of his owner, trainer and jockey. Over time, connections can change for a variety of reasons: The horse is sold to another owner The owner switches trainers or jockey The horse is claimed by a new owner As it stands now, I have model this with the following tables: horses connections (join table) stakeholders (stakeholder has three sub classes: jockey, trainer & owner) Here are my clases and associations: class Horse < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :connection has_one :owner_stakeholder, :through => :connection has_one :jockey_stakeholder, :through => :connection has_one :trainer_stakeholder, :through => :connection end class Connection < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :horse belongs_to :owner_stakeholder belongs_to :jockey_stakeholder belongs_to :trainer_stakeholder end class Stakeholder < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :connections has_many :horses, :through => :connections end class Owner < Stakeholder # Owner specific code goes here. end class Jockey < Stakeholder # Jockey specific code goes here. end class Trainer < Stakeholder # Trainer specific code goes here. end One the database end, I have inserted a Type column in the connections table. Have I modeled this correctly. Is there a better/more elegant approach. Thanks in advance for you feedback. Jim

    Read the article

  • Eclipse users: Do you use Aptana too?

    - by Glenn
    This San Mateo development company makes a freely downloadable convenient packaging of many plugins for Eclipse called Aptana. I was recently in an environment where Aptana came pre-installed. Not only is it a good IDE for RoR, it also does a somewhat decent job (sans debugging) for PHP, Python, HTML, CSS, and Javascript. According to their own web site, their IDE also supports Adobe Air and the iPhone. If you are currently using Eclipse, then do you also use Aptana too? What, if any, are the drawbacks to using Aptana?

    Read the article

  • Problems setting up AuthLogic

    - by sscirrus
    Hi all, I'm trying to set up a simple login using AuthLogic into my User table. Every time I try, the login fails and I don't know why. I'm sure this is a simple error but I've been hitting a brick wall with it for a while. #user_sessions_controller def create @user_session = UserSession.new(params[:user_session]) if @user_session.save flash[:notice] = "Login successful!" else flash[:notice] = "We couldn't log you in. Please try again!" redirect_to :controller => "index", :action => "index" end end #_user_login.html.erb (this is the partial from my index page where Users log in) <% form_tag user_session_path do %> <p><label for="login">Login:</label> <%= text_field_tag "login", nil, :class => "inputBox", :id => "login", </p> <p><label for="password">Password: </label> <%= password_field_tag "password", nil, :class => "inputBox", :id => "password", </p> <p><%= submit_tag "submit", :class => "submit" %></p> <% end %> I had Faker generate some data for my user table but I cannot log in! Every time I try it just redirects to index. Where am I going wrong? Thanks everybody.

    Read the article

  • Heroku powered private restricted beta

    - by Ben Sand
    I'd like to run an app in a restricted private beta on heroku. We're changing the app regularly and haven't done a security audit. To stop anyone exploiting stuff, we'd like to lock down the whole site, so you need a password to access anything. Ideally similar to using .htaccess and .htpasswd files to lock an entire site on an Apache server. Is there a simple one shot way to do this for a heroku hosted app?

    Read the article

  • Do Websites need Local Databases Anymore?

    - by viatropos
    If there's a better place to ask this, please let me know. Every time I build a new website/blog/shopping-cart/etc., I keep trying to do the following: Extract out common functionality into reusable code (Rubygems and jQuery plugins mostly) If possible, convert that gem into a small service so I never have to deal with a database for the objects involved (by service, I mean something lean and mean, usually built with the Sinatra Web Framework with a few core models). My assumption is, if I can remove dependencies on local databases, that will make it easier and more scalable in the long run (scalable in terms of reusability and manageability, not necessarily database/performance). I'm not sure if that's a good or bad assumption yet. What do you think? I've made this assumption because of the following reason: Most serious database/model functionality has been built on the internet somewhere. Just to name a few: Social Network API: Facebook Messaging API: Twitter Mailing API: Google Event API: Eventbrite Shopping API: Shopify Comment API: Disqus Form API: Wufoo Image API: Picasa Video API: Youtube ... Each of those things are fairly complicated to build from scratch and to make as optimized, simple, and easy to use as those companies have made them. So if I build an app that shows pictures (picasa) on an Event page (eventbrite), and you can see who joined the event (facebook events), and send them emails (google apps api), and have them fill out monthly surveys (wufoo), and watch a video when they're done (youtube), all integrated into a custom, easy to use website, and I can do that without ever creating a local database, is that a good thing? I ask because there's two things missing from the puzzle that keep forcing me to create that local database: Post API RESTful/Pretty Url API While there's plenty of Blogging systems and APIs for them, there is no one place where you can just write content and have it part of some massive thing. For every app, I have to use code for creating pretty/restful urls, and that saves posts. But it seems like that should be a service! Question is, is that what the website is? ...That place to integrate the worlds services for my specific cause... and, sigh, to store posts that only my site has access to. Will everyone always need "their own blog"? Why not just have a profile and write lots of content on an established platform like StackOverflow or Facebook? ... That way I can write apps entirely without a database and know that I'm doing it right. Note: Of course at some point you'd need a database, if you were doing something unique or new. But for the case where you're just rewiring information or creating things like videos, events, and products, is it really necessary anymore??

    Read the article

  • Would a Centralized Blogging Service Work?

    - by viatropos
    If there's a better place to ask this, please let me know. Every time I build a new website/blog/shopping-cart/etc., I keep trying to do the following: Extract out common functionality into reusable code (Rubygems and jQuery plugins mostly) If possible, convert that gem into a small service so I never have to deal with a database for the objects involved (by service, I mean something lean and mean, usually built with the Sinatra Web Framework with a few core models. My assumption is, if I can remove dependencies on local databases, that will make it easier and more scalable in the long run (scalable in terms of reusability and manageability, not necessarily database/performance). I'm not sure if that's a good or bad assumption yet. What do you think? I've made this assumption because of the following reason: Most serious database/model functionality has been built on the internet somewhere. Just to name a few: Social Network API: Facebook Messaging API: Twitter Mailing API: Google Event API: Eventbrite Shopping API: Shopify Comment API: Disqus Form API: Wufoo Image API: Picasa Video API: Youtube ... Each of those things are fairly complicated to build from scratch and to make as optimized, simple, and easy to use as those companies have. So if I build an app that shows pictures (picasa) on an Event page (eventbrite), and you can see who joined the event (facebook events), and send them emails (google apps api), and have them fill out monthly surveys (wufoo), and watch a video when they're done (youtube), all integrated into a custom, easy to use website, and I can do that without ever creating a local database, is that a good thing? I ask because there's two things missing from the puzzle that keep forcing me to create that local database: Post API RESTful/Pretty Url API While there's plenty of Blogging systems and APIs for them, there is no one place where you can just write content and have it part of some massive thing. For every app, I have to use code for creating pretty/restful urls, and that saves posts. But it seems like that should be a service! Question is, is that the main point of a website? Will everyone always need "their own blog"? Why not just have a profile and write lots of content on an established platform like StackOverflow or Facebook?

    Read the article

  • Cocoa/MacRuby: How to write a toolbar which accepts custom items?

    - by Joseph Melettukunnel
    I'm doing my first steps in MacRuby. Does anyone know how I can add a custom Toolbar to my Cocoa/MacRuby application, which will accept "regular" items for e.g. switching the view (see http://www.stevestreeting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SelectableToolbarDemo001.png). I've read some tutorials and I guess I have to create a custom delegate for the Toolbar and then connect it via the Outlets window, but how does the myCustomDelegate.rb have to look like? Thanks a lot! Cheers

    Read the article

  • acts_as_xapian jobs table

    - by Grnbeagle
    Hi, Can someone explain to me the inner workings of acts_as_xapian_jobs table? I ran into an issue with the acts_as_xapian plugin recently, where I kept getting the following error when it creates an object with xapian indexed fields: Mysql::Error: Duplicate entry 'String-2147483647' for key 2: INSERT INTO `acts_as_xapian_jobs` (`action`, `model`, `model_id`) VALUES ('update', 'String', 23730251831560) It turns out the model_id exceeded the max int value of 2147483647. The workaround was to update model_id to use bigint. Why would the model_id be so huge? By looking at content of acts_as_xapian_jobs, it seems it creates a row for every field that is being indexed.. Understanding how a job gets created in the table would help a great deal. Here's a sampling of the table: mysql> select * from acts_as_xapian_jobs limit 5\G *************************** 1. row *************************** id: 19 model: String model_id: 23804037900560 action: update *************************** 2. row *************************** id: 49 model: String model_id: 23804037191200 action: update *************************** 3. row *************************** id: 79 model: String model_id: 23804037932180 action: update *************************** 4. row *************************** id: 109 model: String model_id: 23804037101700 action: update *************************** 5. row *************************** id: 139 model: String model_id: 23804037722160 action: update Thanks in advance, Amie

    Read the article

  • When to Store Temporary Values in Hidden Field vs. Session vs. Database?

    - by viatropos
    I am trying to build a simple OpenID login panel similar to how Stack Overflow's works. The goal is: User clicks OpenID/Oauth provider OpenID/Oauth stuff happens, we end up with the result (already made that) Then we want to confirm that the user wants to actually create a new account (vs. associating account with another OpenID account). In StackOverflow, they keep a hidden field on a form that looks like this: <form action="/users/openidconfirm" method="post"> <p>This is an OpenID we haven't seen on Stack Overflow before:</p> <p class="openid-identifier">https://me.yahoo.com/a/some-hash</p> <p>Do you want to associate this OpenID with your Stack Overflow account?</p> <div> <input type="hidden" name="fkey" value="9792ab2zza1q2a4ac414casdfa137eafba7"> <input type="hidden" name="s" value="c1a3q133-11fa-49r0-a7bz-da19849383218"> <input type="submit" value="Associate OpenID"> <input type="button" value="Cancel" onclick="window.location.href = 'http://stackoverflow.com/users/169992/viatropos?s=c1a3q133-11fa-49r0-a7bz-da19849383218'"> </div> </form> Initial question is, what are those hashes fkey and s? Not that I really care what these specific hashes are, but what it seems like is happening is they have processed the openid response and saved it to the DB in a temporary object or something, and from there they generate these keys, because they don't look like Oauth keys to me. Main situation is: after I have processed OpenID/Oauth responses, I don't yet want to create a new user/account until the user submits the "confirm" form. Should I store the keys and tokens temporarily in a "Confirm" form like this? Or is there a better way? It seems that using a temp database object would be a lot of work to manage properly. Thanks for the help. Lance

    Read the article

  • accepts_nested_attributes with Model.update for multiple models

    - by Ohad
    Hi, I'm trying to follow http://railscasts.com/episodes/198-edit-multiple-individually but I would like to save objects which are nested (accepts_nested_attributes_for). I've added the following in my controller: def edit_multiple @people = Person.find(params[:person_ids], :include => [:parameters]) end def update_multiple keys = params[:people].keys if keys.empty? flash[:error] = "Please select at least one person" redirect_to :back and return end values = keys.map {|k| params[:people][k]} @people = Person.update(keys,values).reject { |h| h.errors.empty? } if @people.empty? flash[:notice] = 'Updated people!' redirect_to person_path else redirect_to edit_multiple_path end end and in the view: <% form_tag update_multiple_people_path, :method => :post do %> <% for person in @people %> <% fields_for "people[]", host do |f| %> <%= f.error_messages :object_name => "person" %> <h3><%= h person.name %></h3> <% for parameter in person.parameters %> <% f.fields_for "person_parameters[]", parameter do |builder| -%> <%= render "common/parameters", :f => builder %> <% end -%> <% end -%> <p><%= link_to_add_fields "Add a parameter", f, :person_parameters, "common/parameters" %></p> <% end %> <% end %> <p><%= submit_tag "Edit these Parameter(s)" %></p> <% end %> but I'm always getting a mistmatch - e.g. ActiveRecord::AssociationTypeMismatch and Parameter(#70341811965140) expected, got Array(#70341874300460) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Omniauth Facebook authentication on localhost

    - by Ryan Foster
    I am trying to set up Omniauth as described in this Railscast. While it works with Twitter, I am unable to get it working with Facebook. I also set up 'http://localhost:3000' as siteurl and 'localhost' as domain but still see the following error message in the browser: Invalid redirect_uri: Given URL is not allowed by the Application configuration. Does anyone of you have any suggestions on how to fix this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord Save Dependent Model

    - by Dmitriy Likhten
    I am trying to save a model with it's dependency models being saved. Model1 has_many :model2, :autosave => true Model2 belongs_to :model1 has_many :model3, :autosave => true Model3 belongs_to :model2 I want to save Model1, and have Model2 and 3 save as well. I tried this without and with the autosave feature. What winds up happening is Model1 is saved, Model2 is saved, Model3 is untouched. Is there a way to tell ActiveRecord that for this save I want to save the model and all child models all at once? As a side note, all 3 are just created and are not in the database. I cannot do .create on the models because I cannot save them until all validation passes and all business logic succeeds (has to be a transaction).

    Read the article

  • Naming selenium grid nodes. Spawning a specific node

    - by ???? ????
    I'm trying to implement a kind of default queues in selenium hub. There is a possibility to specify node's name (actually its environment, smth like "firefox on ubuntu" or "chrome on windows"). Selenium grid itself has a default queue, it works according to 'First In, First Out' principle. But I want to prioritize some of my tasks given to selenium server. I have no possibility to introduce custom queue (seems like there is no API for that), that's why I decided to separate queue's logic from selenium server. I'll only call a specific node with specific name (environment) for example "firefox important node" or smth like that. So, I want to know how to directly tell selenium which node to use for my task? And generally, am I thinking in a right way? Here are my configs: hubConfig.json.erb { "host": null, "port": <%= node[:selenium][:server][:port] %>, "newSessionWaitTimeout": -1, "servlets" : [], "prioritizer": null, "capabilityMatcher": "org.openqa.grid.internal.utils.DefaultCapabilityMatcher", "throwOnCapabilityNotPresent": true, "nodePolling": <%= node[:selenium][:server][:node_polling] %>, "cleanUpCycle": <%= node[:selenium][:server][:cleanup_cycle] %>, "timeout": <%= node[:selenium][:server][:timeout] %>, "browserTimeout": 0, "maxSession": <%= node[:selenium][:server][:max_session] %> } nodeConfig.json.erb { "capabilities": [ { "browserName": "firefox", "maxInstances": 5, "seleniumProtocol": "WebDriver" }, { "browserName": "chrome", "maxInstances": 5, "seleniumProtocol": "WebDriver" }, { "browserName": "phantomjs", "maxInstances": 5, "seleniumProtocol": "WebDriver" } ], "configuration": { "proxy": "org.openqa.grid.selenium.proxy.DefaultRemoteProxy", "maxSession": <%= node[:selenium][:node][:max_session] %>, "port": <%= node[:selenium][:node][:port] %>, "host": "<%= node[:fqdn] %>", "register": true, "registerCycle": <%= node[:selenium][:node][:register_cycle] %>, "hubPort": <%= node[:selenium][:server][:port] %> } } And my Driver class: ... def remote_driver @browser = Watir::Browser.new(:remote, :url => "http://myhub.com:4444/wd/hub", :http_client => client, :desired_capabilities => capabilities ) end def capabilities Selenium::WebDriver::Remote::Capabilities.send( "firefox", :javascript_enabled => true, :css_selectors_enabled => true, :takes_screenshot => true ) end def client client = Selenium::WebDriver::Remote::Http::Default.new client.timeout = 360 client end ... I still don't know how to use specified node for my task. If I try to start a driver adding :name => "firefox important node" and extend nodeConfig.json.erb's configuration with environments: - name: "firefox important node" browser: "*firefox" - name: "Firefox36 on Linux" browser: "*firefox" selenium just starts random firefox browser on a random node. How can I control it?

    Read the article

  • Rack throwing an error when trying to serve a static file.

    - by Cameron
    use Rack::Static, :urls => ['/stylesheets', '/images'], :root => 'public' run proc { |env| [200, { 'Content-Type' => 'text/html', 'Cache-Control' => 'public, max-age=86400' }, File.open('public/index.html')] } I get private method `open' called for Rack::File:Class when I rackup. Really can't see where the problem is. Running rack 1.1. Help please...

    Read the article

  • vestal_versions and htmldiff question of reversion...

    - by holden
    I'm guessing there's probably an easier way to do what I'm doing so that the code is less unwieldy. I had trouble understanding how to use the revert_to method... i wanted something where i could call up two different versions at the same time, but this doesn't seem to be the way that vestal_versions works. This code works, but I'm wondering if I'm making something harder than it needs to be and I'd like to find out before I delve deeper. @article = Article.find(params[:id]) if params[:versions] v = params[:versions].split(',') @article.revert_to(v.first.to_i) @content1 = @article.content @article.revert_to(v.last.to_i) @content2 = @article.content end In case you're wondering, I'm using this in conjunction with HTMLDIFF to get the version changes. <div id="content"> <% if params[:versions] %> <%= Article.diff(@content1, @content2) %> <% else %> <%= @article.content %> <% end %> </div>

    Read the article

  • How do we know if a query is cache or retrieved from database?

    - by Hadi
    For example: class Product has_many :sales_orders def total_items_deliverable self.sales_orders.each { |so| #sum the total } #give back the value end end class SalesOrder def self.deliverable # return array of sales_orders that are deliverable to customer end end SalesOrder.deliverable #give all sales_orders that are deliverable to customer pa = Product.find(1) pa.sales_orders.deliverable #give all sales_orders whose product_id is 1 and deliverable to customer pa.total_so_deliverable The very point that i'm going to ask is: how many times SalesOrder.deliverable is actually computed, from point 1, 3, and 4, They are computed 3 times that means 3 times access to database so having total_so_deliverable is promoting a fat model, but more database access. Alternatively (in view) i could iterate while displaying the content, so i ends up only accessing the database 2 times instead of 3 times. Any win win solution / best practice to this kind of problem ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322  | Next Page >