Then you should only need the parent id, not the grandparent unless you're trying to create a parent along with the child at the same time...
On Jun 22, 3:14 pm, Ronbo <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, there is. The card is for the grandchildren collection, nested > inside cards for the children of the parent. > > grandparent to parent: has_one/belongs to > parent to children is: has_many to has_many > > On Jun 22, 4:56 pm, kevinpfromnm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Isn't there a db relationship between the grandparent and parent > > already? > > > On Jun 22, 2:53 pm, Ronbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > OK - this is screwier than I realized. My description of the problem > > > was wrong. It is not the parent id that was repeating for each link - > > > it was the grand-parent (project/document) id. Then, when I tried with > > > this_parent in the link, I get the innermost card's id, which I > > > already have. So it seems I am either fetching one to high, or one to > > > low in the hierarchy. > > > > confused > > > > On Jun 22, 4:29 pm, kevinpfromnm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > this_parent I believe is the previous context item (in views, not > > > > model). > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:14 pm, Ronbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks again - that clarifies a lot. One other question - what is the > > > > > best way to access the id of the parent card? Is this info easy to get > > > > > at? > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:11 pm, kevinpfromnm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Well, mostly it would encapsulate your backend logic in one spot > > > > > > along > > > > > > with an easy place to manage access. It doesn't have to be a > > > > > > lifecycle since you really only have one step/state, but think it > > > > > > makes for a clean way to handle it. > > > > > > > your create action would include params for item to copy and target > > > > > > to > > > > > > link to. You'd have to include the form and maybe tweak it a little > > > > > > to get the stuff that's automatic set as hidden inputs. > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 12:53 pm, Ronbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Kevin - not sure what there is about a lifecycle that > > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > superior. Can you explain a bit? > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:07 pm, kevinpfromnm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's going to be a routing issue for this... I > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > probably look at making a lifecycle to handle the copy process > > > > > > > > and/or > > > > > > > > you might need to add hidden variables in the form(s) to specify > > > > > > > > targets. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:36 am, Ronbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Looking at that post, I should add some details. > > > > > > > > > > URLs look like: > > > > > > > > > >http://localhost:3000/activities/3/duplicado/1-hiring-initiativehttp:... > > > > > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > > > > >http://localhost:3000/activities/3/duplicado/4-something-else, > > > > > > > > >etc > > > > > > > > > > Here is the route: > > > > > > > > > > map.duplicado 'activities/:activity_id/duplicado/:id', > > > > > > > > > :controller => > > > > > > > > > 'activities', :action => 'duplicado', :has_many > > > > > > > > > => :units#, :path_prefix => '/activities/:activity_id' > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 7:07 pm, Ronbo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > I have a scenario where users will create new documents, > > > > > > > > > > documents > > > > > > > > > > will have sections, and users can add boilerplate content > > > > > > > > > > to each > > > > > > > > > > section. Users will also be able to make a local (editable) > > > > > > > > > > copy of > > > > > > > > > > the pieces of content. > > > > > > > > > > > I want to present this to the users as a single page, with > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > document, sections and pieces all available and editable > > > > > > > > > > without a lot > > > > > > > > > > of navigating. I do this by rendering the section > > > > > > > > > > collection on the > > > > > > > > > > project page, and the piece collection on each section card. > > > > > > > > > > > I have most of this working, but for creating a copy of a > > > > > > > > > > piece of > > > > > > > > > > content, I need to update the link table that joins the > > > > > > > > > > piece of > > > > > > > > > > content to the section. What I do is 1. create a copy of > > > > > > > > > > the piece, > > > > > > > > > > flag the copy as editable and then change the piece_id on > > > > > > > > > > the join and > > > > > > > > > > refresh the page. > > > > > > > > > > > but ... the urls constructed for my "copy" link, which > > > > > > > > > > includes the > > > > > > > > > > piece_id, the action name and the section_id *all* have the > > > > > > > > > > section id > > > > > > > > > > for the first section on the page, regardless of which > > > > > > > > > > section a piece > > > > > > > > > > is in. So if I click "copy" on piece 4 in section 3, the > > > > > > > > > > controller > > > > > > > > > > tries to make a copy of piece 4 in section 1. > > > > > > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo Users" 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/hobousers?hl=en.
