Forum: Ruby on Rails What happened to CoC?

Hi everyone,

  First I want to begin by saying I am a total newbie when it comes to
Rails.  I am reading Obie Fernandez's The Rails Way, but I have a
question about something he says.  He says that if I have a controller
like this:

class DemoController < ApplicationController
  def index
  end
end

  Even though it is empty, Rails will still render the index template
(in the book he uses Rails 1.2, and the template is named index.rhtml).
He says that is part of what "convention over configuration" means.

  All that sounds great, but when I tried it out using JRuby 1.4.0,
Rails 2.3.5, glassfish gem 1.0.2, using an empty controller action
similar to the one above, I got this as a result:

Routing Error

No route matches "/receta/index" with {:method=>:get}

  I kept wondering what I did wrong, so I decided to try a scaffold made
controller, and see what the differences are.  It turns out, that by
putting my controller like this makes it work:

class RecetaController < ApplicationController
  def index
    respond_to do |format|
      format.html # index.html.erb
    end
  end
end

  I noticed that, contrary to the book, my template is named
index.html.erb.  Did that change as the versions progressed?  I  also
can't believe that something that is in accord to the CoC philosophy
would not work in a more recent version of the framework.  Why doesn't
an empty controller action render its template in my version?  For that
matter, is the book I'm reading still good, or is it too old and some of
what is says doens't apply any more?

  I love Rails, and want to become proficient in it, so any info you
guys can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Hi Tuti,

You can still use a empty controller method.

You just have to name it ie. index.html.erb or index.erb :)

Cheers,
David

On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 02:31 +0100, tuti plain wrote:
> end
> 
>     end
> 
>   I love Rails, and want to become proficient in it, so any info you
> guys can provide will be greatly appreciated.
----
I am not exactly sure what is meant by CoC, Continuity of Code?

If that's the case, don't count on it because many things changed from
1.2 to 2.x

2.0 release notes
http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2007/12/7/rails-2-0-it-s-done

2.3 release notes
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/2_3_release_notes.html

if you are determined to play along with an outdated book that uses an
outdated version of Rails, you might consider installing and using an
outdated version of Rails...

gem install rails --version 1.2.6 (I think is the command...going from
flaky memory) Then you would have to instruct rails to use a different
version (check out the 'rake --tasks' command)

or you can try to deduce the changes from the release notes offered
above.

Craig



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

tuti plain wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
>   First I want to begin by saying I am a total newbie when it comes to
> Rails.  I am reading Obie Fernandez's The Rails Way, but I have a
> question about something he says.  He says that if I have a controller
> like this:
> 
> class DemoController < ApplicationController
>   def index
>   end
> end
> 
>   Even though it is empty, Rails will still render the index template
> (in the book he uses Rails 1.2, and the template is named index.rhtml).
> He says that is part of what "convention over configuration" means.
> 
>   All that sounds great, but when I tried it out using JRuby 1.4.0,
> Rails 2.3.5, glassfish gem 1.0.2, using an empty controller action
> similar to the one above, I got this as a result:
> 
> Routing Error
> 
> No route matches "/receta/index" with {:method=>:get}

What's the output from rake routes?  The example should still work in 
Rails 2.x, provided your routes are correct.

> 
>   I kept wondering what I did wrong, so I decided to try a scaffold made
> controller, and see what the differences are.  It turns out, that by
> putting my controller like this makes it work:
> 
> class RecetaController < ApplicationController
>   def index
>     respond_to do |format|
>       format.html # index.html.erb
>     end
>   end
> end
> 
>   I noticed that, contrary to the book, my template is named
> index.html.erb.  Did that change as the versions progressed?  

It certainly did.  The .rhtml suffix will still work in Rails 2.x, but 
is deprecated.

> I  also
> can't believe that something that is in accord to the CoC philosophy
> would not work in a more recent version of the framework.  Why doesn't
> an empty controller action render its template in my version?  

It still should.  I think you're just having a routing issue.

> For that
> matter, is the book I'm reading still good, or is it too old and some of
> what is says doens't apply any more?
> 

Rails 2.x is very different from Rails 1.x.  Try to find an up-to-date 
book.  http://guides.rails.info is also a great place to start.

>   I love Rails, and want to become proficient in it, so any info you
> guys can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen@marnen.org

> I am not exactly sure what is meant by CoC, Continuity of Code?

CoC means "convention over configuration", which is supposed to be one 
of Rails' founding philosophies.

> if you are determined to play along with an outdated book that uses an
> outdated version of Rails, you might consider installing and using an
> outdated version of Rails...

  It's not that I'm determined to play with an outdated book, I just 
thought, this book was the de facto reference for Rails, but I guess I 
might have been wrong about it.

>Hi Tuti,

>You can still use a empty controller method.

>You just have to name it ie. index.html.erb or index.erb :)

  That is exactly what I had, but it didn't work until I added the 
respond_to code.  Not that I intend to have empty controller methods, 
but I'd still like to know why it didn't function.

>Rails 2.x is very different from Rails 1.x.  Try to find an up-to-date 
>book.  http://guides.rails.info is also a great place to start.

  I had been on this page before and tried out the first tutorials. 
Guess I'll go more in depth.

Thanks for your replies!

The Rails Way certainly is the de facto Rails book... but for Rails 1.2. 
I'm
pretty sure it was never updated for 2.x, but I could be wrong. My copy 
is
for 1.2.

In any case, yeah, as everyone else said, it should work. The "rake 
routes"
suggestion is a good one, since you're seeing a routing error.

I have a version of the book with something that looks like a circular
stamp on the cover that says "Covers Rails 2.0", so I guess it has
been updated. ;)

And I would have to agree with Marnen. It looks like you have a
routing issue.

Cheers.

> I have a version of the book with something that looks like a circular
> stamp on the cover that says "Covers Rails 2.0", so I guess it has
> been updated. ;)
> 
> And I would have to agree with Marnen. It looks like you have a
> routing issue.
> 
> Cheers.

  Mine has it, too.  The author clarifies in the first chapter, that he 
used edge Rails to cover 2.0 features at the time of writing, so it is 
likely that it does not cover all  2.x features.