6 ms·

Would love to see some more information on best practices for routing. I've always used http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html http://guides.rubyonrails.org

Would love to see some more information on best practices for routing. I've always used http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html as a go-to resource on routing, and it uses 'match' statements throughout. Is the suggestion here to just change all match statements to the intended REST verb?

mattgreenrocks 14y ago
You should be using resource-based routes if you've already got the RESTful controller thing going. The match statement is good for the occasional odd cases, but it has an :via option that can be used to restrict which HTTP actions it is allowed to match. Edit: corrected below...thanks!
- homakov 14y ago
  Fix - not :as but :via. Using match :via => :post is worse than just post 'data', it is obvious btw :) and there are almost no odd cases in fact. I would propose special route named "not_found" or "default" like route to be called if no routes found. Nice idea IMO, what do you think?
  - mattgreenrocks 14y ago
    Thanks, it is early :) I had to use match when moving from Rails 2 to Rails 3 and parts of the route did not match the controller at all. But I think it was mostly because the upgrade plugin recommended it.
mnutt 14y ago
The only thing I don't like about the Rails routing guide is how much it talks about having a default route of `match ':controller/:action/:id'`. I would still use `match`, but any actions that are meant to be posts should add `:method => :post` to them. And ideally use `resources` where ever it makes sense.
- spicyj 14y ago
  You can simply write post instead of match to require a POST request.
  - uxp 14y ago
    You can use most all of the verbs: get '/foo' => 'foos#index', as: :foo post '/foo' => 'foos#new', as: :new_foo get '/foo/:id' => 'foos#show', as: :show_foo put '/foo/:id' => 'foos#edit', as: :edit_foo delete '/foo/:id' => 'foos#destroy', as: :destroy_foo or scope them if you'd like: scope controller: "foo", constraints: { id: /0-9]+/ } do get '/foo' => :index, as: :foo post '/foo' => :new, as: :new_foo put ... delete ... end
- homakov 14y ago
  Fix: not :method but :via :) And, again! PLEASE use method "data" instead of match :via => method. It's much better and looks clean.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    In exactly what sense do you think that's better?
    - homakov 14y ago
      it does absolutely same job(you can read sources) but requires less symbols and looks RESTful - fair enough, isn't it?
  - mnutt 14y ago
    Sorry, you're right about the :via, I must have misremembered.
- cmwright 14y ago
  Right, so what this post is saying is that for the most part the evil is in using this default route, leaving open controller actions that should only be accessible as posts. Will have to look more into the docs, but it's good to know that the methods specified in the guide have some caveats.

mattgreenrocks 14y ago

You should be using resource-based routes if you've already got the RESTful controller thing going. The match statement is good for the occasional odd cases, but it has an :via option that can be used to restrict which HTTP actions it is allowed to match. Edit: corrected below...thanks!

homakov 14y ago
Fix - not :as but :via. Using match :via => :post is worse than just post 'data', it is obvious btw :) and there are almost no odd cases in fact. I would propose special route named "not_found" or "default" like route to be called if no routes found. Nice idea IMO, what do you think?
- mattgreenrocks 14y ago
  Thanks, it is early :) I had to use match when moving from Rails 2 to Rails 3 and parts of the route did not match the controller at all. But I think it was mostly because the upgrade plugin recommended it.

mnutt 14y ago

The only thing I don't like about the Rails routing guide is how much it talks about having a default route of `match ':controller/:action/:id'`. I would still use `match`, but any actions that are meant to be posts should add `:method => :post` to them. And ideally use `resources` where ever it makes sense.

spicyj 14y ago
You can simply write post instead of match to require a POST request.
- uxp 14y ago
  You can use most all of the verbs: get '/foo' => 'foos#index', as: :foo post '/foo' => 'foos#new', as: :new_foo get '/foo/:id' => 'foos#show', as: :show_foo put '/foo/:id' => 'foos#edit', as: :edit_foo delete '/foo/:id' => 'foos#destroy', as: :destroy_foo or scope them if you'd like: scope controller: "foo", constraints: { id: /0-9]+/ } do get '/foo' => :index, as: :foo post '/foo' => :new, as: :new_foo put ... delete ... end
homakov 14y ago
Fix: not :method but :via :) And, again! PLEASE use method "data" instead of match :via => method. It's much better and looks clean.
- tptacek 14y ago
  In exactly what sense do you think that's better?
  - homakov 14y ago
    it does absolutely same job(you can read sources) but requires less symbols and looks RESTful - fair enough, isn't it?
- mnutt 14y ago
  Sorry, you're right about the :via, I must have misremembered.
cmwright 14y ago
Right, so what this post is saying is that for the most part the evil is in using this default route, leaving open controller actions that should only be accessible as posts. Will have to look more into the docs, but it's good to know that the methods specified in the guide have some caveats.