Remote_form_for not passing form values

Rails
1

I have the following:

<% form_remote_for :role, :method => :put, :url => {:controller =>
“roles”, :action => “update”, :id => @role.id
} do |f| %>

<%= select("role", "default_view", Account::ROLES) %> <%= submit_tag("Update"); %>
<% end -%>

Controller code:
def update
role = Role.find(params[:id])
role.update_attributes(params[:role])
render :update do |page|
logger.info "update: " + debug(params)
end

the “debug(params)” outputs:

update: 

— !map:HashWithIndifferentAccess

_method: put

action: update

id: “6”

controller: roles

There is no “default_view” field from my drop down. Just the params
passed on the URL string. Not sure why this is happening.

Thanks for any help

2

I solved it: Don’t put your form tag under a

tag. Argh.
3

2009/1/9 Allen W. [email protected]

I solved it: Don’t put your form tag under a

tag. Argh.

*Is this a Rails bug? *

Just hit the same issue, i.e. my field attributes were not being passed
within a “remote_form_for” that was within a table.

How is one supposed to work around this if you need an AJAX form call
within
part of a table, and the table is required for the existing layout of
the
page?

4

2009/2/19 Greg H. [email protected]

2009/1/9 Allen W. [email protected]

I solved it: Don’t put your form tag under a

tag. Argh.

I see that you can put a form in a table, but it has to fit entirely
within
a table cell (not perfect answer, but better than not being able to use
a
table at all)

5

No, it’s not a Rails bug - lrn2html. (ref:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1
)

Typically, one puts the table in the form, not the other way around.
The HTML spec is pretty specific about what can go inside the table
tag
without being contained by a cell.

I’d also add, in reference to the original code, that you should be
using
f.select(:default_view, Account::ROLES) - form_for and friends pass
the
builder to the block.

–Matt J.

On Feb 19, 12:17 am, Greg H. [email protected]

6

On 20 Feb 2009, at 10:52, Greg H. wrote:

fair enough - interesting through things worked fine with
“form_for”, and it was just when moving to “remote_form_for” the
issue kicked in…

Probably because with remote_form_for the serialization happens in
javascript. You’re going down a different codepath and so the
undefined behaviour may be different.

Fred

7

fair enough - interesting through things worked fine with “form_for”,
and it
was just when moving to “remote_form_for” the issue kicked in…

2009/2/20 Matt J. [email protected]

I’d also add, in reference to the original code, that you should be

–
Greg
http://blog.gregnet.org/