There's no additional trace information in the log, just the warning.
Is there an option to turn on full backtraces for warnings?  That
would certainly help identify the source of the problem.

The code snippet I provided was from lib/haml/helpers/
action_view_mods.rb in the plugin, around line 50.

You are correct that this is a form call, specifically form_remote_tag
(I took out the '_remote' and it still have the same warning).  Here's
my code:

- form_remote_tag(:update => "source_title", :url => {:action =>
'update_title'}) do |f|
  %p
    %label Title:
    = text_field :source, :title, :size => 80
    = submit_tag "Do AJAX Update"

Now I see the problem.  I just copied the "|f|" part from somewhere,
but it doesn't seem to be needed here.  If I take it out there error
disappears.  And if I leave it in and try to use "f.text_field" then I
get a "trying to evaluate nil" error.  Not sure where I got that |f|
business from in the first place.

Thanks,
-Jason



On Feb 26, 12:01 pm, "Nathan Weizenbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This may be Haml code, but it's hard to tell without more information.
> Unless I'm mistaken, it's a form_tag call or something like that that's
> running that bit of code... what arguments are you passing to form_tag? Or,
> if you aren't using form_tag, what's further up in the backtrace?
>
> - Nathan
>
> On 2/26/07, jmay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been experimenting with HAML for a few days.  Very nice!  But I'm
> > getting the following warning on my (Mongrel) server log, every time I
> > display a HAML page:
>
> > (eval):16: warning: multiple values for a block parameter (0 for 1)
> >         from
> > .../vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/helpers/action_view_mods.rb:50
>
> > Not sure how to diagnose this.  The offending code is
>
> >             proc = bind_proc do |*args|
> >               concat "\n"
> >               tab_up
> >               oldproc.call(*args)
> >               tab_down
> >             end
>
> > so apparently there aren't any arguments being passed in when
> > expected.  How can I tell if this is a bug in the HAML code or in
> > mine?
>
> > Thanks,
> > -Jason


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Haml" 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/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to