Forum: Ruby on Rails format.atom renders builder templates inside HTML application layout in 2.3.0

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Ef9ecd30591995af2cf62cde10b26e49?d=identicon&s=25 Wincent Colaiuta (Guest)
on 2009-02-15 09:20
(Received via mailing list)
Given a builder template at "app/views/posts/index.atom.builder", in
2.2.2 my controller methods could render atom feeds like this:

  format.atom { @posts = Post.find(:all) }

As of 2.3.0 RC1, that code produces unusable feeds because they get
rendered _inside_ the application layout (HTML). So I now need to
render like this:

  format.atom {
    @posts = Post.find(:all)
    render :layout => false
  }

Is this a bug/regression in 2.3.0 RC1? Or was I just lucky in the past
because the old behaviour was not intended?

And if the new behaviour _is_ intended, is there a way I can set a
default layout (false) for the atom format in one single place,
instead of having to do it explicitly in every action of every
controller?

Cheers,
Wincent
Ef9ecd30591995af2cf62cde10b26e49?d=identicon&s=25 Wincent Colaiuta (Guest)
on 2009-02-16 12:09
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 15, 9:19 am, Wincent Colaiuta <w...@wincent.com> wrote:
>
> And if the new behaviour _is_ intended, is there a way I can set a
> default layout (false) for the atom format in one single place,
> instead of having to do it explicitly in every action of every
> controller?

The workaround I'm currently testing is sticking this in my
application_controller.rb:

  layout Proc.new { |controller| controller.send(:is_atom?) ? false :
'application' }

Where "is_atom?" is just this method:

  def is_atom?
    params[:format] == 'atom'
  end

Still wondering though, why this used to work pre-2.3.0 and what/why
it has has changed all of a sudden...

> Is this a bug/regression in 2.3.0 RC1? Or was I just lucky in the past
> because the old behaviour was not intended?

Cheers,
Wincent
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.