# What happened to CoC?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [February 8, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096 "2010-02-08T02:31:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/1 "2010-02-08T02:31:31Z")

</div>

Hi everyone,

First I want to begin by saying I am a total newbie when it comes to  
Rails. I am reading Obie F.'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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/2 "2010-02-08T02:36:31Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/3 "2010-02-08T02:55:15Z")

</div>

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

> **[Rails 2.0: It's done!](https://rubyonrails.org/2007/12/7/rails-2-0-it-s-done)**
>
> Rails 2.0 is finally finished after about a year in the making. This is a fantastic release that’s absolutely stuffed with great new features, loads of fixes, and an incredible amount of polish. We’ve even taken a fair bit of cruft out to make the...

2.3 release notes

> **[Ruby on Rails 2.3 Release Notes — Ruby on Rails Guides](https://guides.rubyonrails.org/2_3_release_notes.html)**
>
> Ruby on Rails 2.3 Release NotesRails 2.3 delivers a variety of new and improved features, including pervasive Rack integration, refreshed support for Rails Engines, nested transactions for Active Record, dynamic and default scopes, unified rendering,...

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/4 "2010-02-08T03:54:41Z")

</div>

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 F.'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](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](http://www.marnen.org)  
removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/5 "2010-02-08T14:16:53Z")

</div>

> 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](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!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/6 "2010-02-09T03:53:12Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/7 "2010-02-10T01:47:52Z")

</div>

> 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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@tutiplain](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tutiplain)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/what-happened-to-coc/183096/8 "2010-02-08T15:23:52Z")

</div>

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.