Hey Jon, Wow, that one tip completely changed the game for me. I didn't realize there was a generator; is that mentioned anywhere? Knowing about them and this as_routes bit has let me get up and going in a few minutes, which is excellent! Thanks much!
jack On Sep 8, 11:38 am, Jon Frisby <[email protected]> wrote: > Rails3 requires considerably more effort, but could be made easier by just > including ALL the steps in the readme rather than relying on people to > actually use the generator to discover things. > > The routing issue is a great example of that. > > In this case, he needs to update his routing for that resource like so: > > resources :whatever do as_routes end > > Instead of just: > > resources :leads > > I hit the exact same show_search thing too last night. And in this case, the > configurable defaults of AS don't even come into play -- this must be done > for every scaffold if you want things to behave properly. > > -JF > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Michael Bahnmiller wrote: > > > > > Hey Jack, > > > AS has been incredibly helpful to me. I'm sort of the other mindset, in > > that they have developed this thing with a very good set of defaults. > > > It's been my experience (though I'm using Rails 2.3.8) that /most/ stuff > > works right out of the box. That said, even the stuff that doesn't work > > immediately, I write to the list about and it either gets worked on and > > fixed within a day or two or someone from the list writes back explaining > > how things should be done. > > > At first the documentation is hard to navigate and figure out, I agree. > > But once you get an idea of what's going on, it's not quite so bad. > > > If you need any help, just write! Sometimes it's just a matter of getting > > relationships set up correctly, etc. > > > Also, a note on defaults - you can, in fact, set your own set of defaults > > in the application controller so that you don't have to worry about setting > > them every time. > > > Anyway, feel free to write. > > > Thanks, and welcome to the group :) > > Mikelb > > > On 09/08/2010 12:31 AM, jack dempsey wrote: > >> I recently tried using ActiveScaffold in a simple application of mine. > >> I've found the process extremely frustrating and had basically given > >> up. After looking through some of the other common choices for admin > >> type interfaces, I'm looking at ActiveScaffold again, as the other > >> choices are even more frustrating. > > >> This is of course my opinion, but as a user new to this lib, I would > >> expect some semblance of an ability to get things running without too > >> much hassle. > > >> So, I setup the basics, added active_scaffold :model to a controller, > >> and then set about to try things out. > > >> Things blow up immediately with an error about a route not matching > >> show_search. Search? I'm not even thinking about search yet. Why is > >> this a default that can't work on its own? > > >> I eventually find the API docs and figure out some way of avoiding the > >> search action. I try loading things up again. > > >> This time it bombs with an error about edit_associated something or > >> other. Ok...I comment out the has_and_belongs_to_many call in my model > >> and refresh. Voila, the page loads! So after that first success I go > >> back and try to figure out what to do next. After trying a variety of > >> things I somehow get it to work, sort of. > > >> So, in short, I think you've done an incredible job of trying to > >> handle a huge variety of situations and use cases. I know this stuff > >> is complex and I can only imagine the time put into the project. I > >> don't send this with any sort of entitlement or feeling that anyone > >> owes me something. Quite the contrary. > > >> However, I do think there are some basic improvements that could be > >> made that would hugely help people get up and get going with > >> ActiveScaffold. > > >> 1. if configuration is needed for an option, don't include it in the > >> defaults. Don't make me think about search when I may not even want > >> it. Don't make me add in other methods, routes, links, or whatever if > >> I just want to get a simple scaffolding view of some models going. > >> It's so much better to opt-in to the more advanced capabilities once > >> ready than force them on a user to start with. > > >> 2. A certain amount of configuration is acceptable of course. For > >> instance, adding in include helpers, changing things like what js > >> framework to use, etc. makes a lot of sense to me. I still don't like > >> having to do that sort of thing each time I want to generate a new > >> idea, so I've wrapped it up in a rails 3 compatible recipe in a > >> project of mine, which you can see here: > >>http://github.com/jackdempsey/beet/blob/master/lib/beet/recipes/rails... > > >> The line I would draw though is using beet to setup config options in > >> a controller to exclude search and so on as a default. I really think > >> that should be the default choice from the lib itself. > > >> 3. If certain choices remain standard, then it'd be great to have a > >> small section of "this is what you need to do to get going", showing > >> configs for search, how to setup edit_associated urls, and other > >> things like that. There may very well be this sort of page out there, > >> but I couldn't find it, and gave up after a good amount of searching. > > >> The reason I'm so frustrated is that this project is so close to being > >> something amazingly useful for me and I imagine many others, but these > >> first stumbling steps were almost enough to make me want to quit > >> trying and not look back, and that would be a shame. > > >> I'm not one to complain and expect others to code for me. I'd be happy > >> to help document things (once I understand them better) and engage in > >> a discussion about defaults, how easy it should or shouldn't be to get > >> up and running, etc. At this point though I don't want to jump back in > >> without a better sense of hope that each new thing I try to do won't > >> be broken to start, and force me to scour pages looking for a fix. Is > > >> Thank you for the time, effort, and consideration put into AS. I truly > >> appreciate it and hope I can help with improving it even more. > > >> best, > >> Jack > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en.
