On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:35 PM, AkitaOnRails <[email protected]> wrote: > > As we are already using :member => { :new => :get }, what about > actually having a 'clone' action and change it to :member => { :clone > => :get } ?
Yup: commit 342f7b727c5aadb796fff6ac5f7dedf4647e1a1c Author: Johan Sørensen <[email protected]> Date: Mon Jan 12 11:05:28 2009 +0100 rename RepositoryController#new/create to #clone/#create_clone to avoid future confusion and rails issues. Update AUTHORS as well. JS > > On Jan 8, 6:38 am, "Johan Sørensen" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM, AkitaOnRails <[email protected]> wrote: >> > If you're watching the newest updates to the main repo, you'll see >> > that I've been quite busy :-) >> >> Very nice, thanks for the work. >> >> >> >> > But there are still some oddities that I would like to expose >> > here. One is actually breaking my head right now. >> >> > Take this route: >> >> > map.resources :projects do |projects| >> > projects.resources :repositories, :member => { :new => :get } >> > end >> >> > This is a simplification of the clone page. If I load this under Rails >> > 2.1.0 and simulate his named route: >> >> >>> new_project_repository_path(1,2) >> >> > It works properly and gives back: >> >> > => "/projects/1/repositories/2/new" >> >> > But, if I just change the version to Rails 2.2.2 and run it again, now >> > I have: >> >> >>> new_project_repository_path(1,2) >> > NoMethodError: You have a nil object when you didn't expect it! >> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.to_sym> >> > [snip] >> > Does anyone know what have changed in the nesting logic of 2.2.2 that >> > makes this break to badly? >> >> I think the primary reason is probably that we're breaking rails >> conventions horribly here, basically the #new and #create actions in >> the RepositoriesController behave very differently in that they >> require the repository id as well in the route >> (/projects/x/repos/y/new as opposed to the usual rails way: >> /projects/x/repos/new). I've forgotting my originally reasoning for >> breaking that convention, but probably related to being too lazy to >> figure out two better action names, or move it to another controller. >> Any suggestions for a nicer approach? The intent of the to actions is >> to clone a repository. >> >> JS > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gitorious" 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/gitorious?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
