URL hit the wrong controller LARAVEL - php

In route.php I defined a route to a controller with 2 tokens on it.
Route::get('/{category}/{slug}', 'projectController#detail');
Everything is working fine till when there is a call to a URL that have the same structure but has nothing to do with the one that has to be caught by that route shown below.
So when I have for example "/admin/tags", the controller below is triggered because it has the same structure of "/{category}/{slug}" and of course it gives me an error, because it doesn't find a variable.
So now I fixed the problem moving that route on the bottom, but I believe I have to do something to prevent this behavior in advance, cause if I have multiple routes with different tokens everything would be triggered every time and there would be a mess.
So, what is it supposed to do in these cases?
P.S. I'm super beginner with Laravel

use some constraint to the route, reference parameters-regular-expression-constraints. For example:
Route::get('user/{name}', function ($name) {
//
})
->where('name', '[A-Za-z]+');
Or you can make the most specific before unspecific one. For example, in this sequence:
Route::get("/admin/tags", '......');
Route::get('/{category}/{slug}', 'projectController#detail');

if route need two token like that, i'm usually add prefix so my routes looks like this
Route::get('/categories/{category}/slug/{slug}', 'ProjectController#detail');
or
Route::get('/categories/{category}/{slug}', 'ProjectController#detail');

I was having the same issue.
I have constraints on every path parameter (as you always should) and unfortunately the conflict occurs between the following:
Route::get('{userId}/{path}', [
'as' => 'products',
'uses' => 'HomeController#click'
])->where(['id' => '[0-9]+', 'path' => '[0-9a-fA-F]+']);
Route::get('link/{link_path}', [
'as' => 'product-link',
'uses' => 'UserController#productLink'
])->where(['link_path' => '[0-9a-fA-F]+']);
Where even though the one path has the prepended 'link/' in the path it still tried to hit the other. By placing the route with the prepended 'link/' above the other route it took priority and works.
Personally I think if you have a condition that isn't met on the route where clause it should skip the route and move on to the next. It doesn't really make sense to me to put a conditional that doesn't actually get passed up if the conditions aren't met.
Hopefully this helps anyone else having this issue.

Related

Laravel 8 Routing Redirect to blank page [duplicate]

In my routes.php I have:
Route::patch('/preferences/{id}', 'UserController#update');
And in the view file (account/preferences.blade.php) I have:
{!! Form::model(Auth::user(), ['method' => 'PATCH', 'route' => '/preferences/' . Auth::user()->id]) !!}
But I'm getting this error:
Route [/preferences/1] not defined
A similar error occurs when calling the route() helper directly:
route('/preferences/' . Auth::user()->id');
I think I'm misunderstanding the docs on this topic but I've defined a route for PATCH requests with a given parameter, and set this in the view correctly. What am I overlooking here?
The route() method, which is called when you do ['route' => 'someroute'] in a form opening, wants what's called a named route. You give a route a name like this:
Route::patch('/preferences/{id}',[
'as' => 'user.preferences.update',
'uses' => 'UserController#update'
]);
That is, you make the second argument of the route into an array, where you specify both the route name (the as), and also what to do when the route is hit (the uses).
Then, when you open the form, you call the route:
{!! Form::model(Auth::user(), [
'method' => 'PATCH',
'route' => ['user.preferences.update', Auth::user()->id]
]) !!}
Now, for a route without parameters, you could just do 'route' => 'routename', but since you have a parameter, you make an array instead and supply the parameters in order.
All that said, since you appear to be updating the current user's preferences, I would advise you to let the handling controller check the id of the currently logged-in user, and base the updating on that - there's no need to send in the id in the url and the route unless your users should need to update the preferences of other users as well. :)
This thread is old but was the first one to come up so I thought id share my solution too. Apart from having named routes in your routes.php file. This error can also occur when you have duplicate URLs in your routes file, but with different names, the error can be misleading in this scenario. Example:
Route::any('official/form/reject-form', 'FormStatus#rejectForm')
->name('reject-form');
Route::any('official/form/accept-form', 'FormStatus#acceptForm')
->name('accept-form');
Changing one of the names solves the problem. Copy, pasting, & fatigue can lead you to this problem :).
If route is not defined, then check web.php routing file.
Route::get('/map', 'NavigationController#map')->name('map'); // note the name() method.
Then you can use this method in the views:
<a class="nav-link" href="{{ route('map') }}">{{ __('Map') }}</a>
PS: the __('Map') is to translate "Map" to the current language.
And the list of names for routes you can see with artisan command:
php artisan route:list
I'm using Laravel 5.7 and tried all of the above answers but nothing seemed to be hitting the spot.
For me, it was a rather simple fix by removing the cache files created by Laravel.
It seemed that my changes were not being reflected, and therefore my application wasn't seeing the routes.
A bit overkill, but I decided to reset all my cache at the same time using the following commands:
php artisan route:clear
php artisan view:clear
php artisan cache:clear
The main one here is the first command which will delete the bootstrap/cache/routes.php file.
The second command will remove the cached files for the views that are stored in the storage/framework/cache folder.
Finally, the last command will clear the application cache.
when you execute the command
php artisan route:list
You will see all your registered routes in there in table format .
Well there you see many columns like Method , URI , Name , Action .. etc.
So basically if you are using route() method that means it will accept only name column values and if you want to use URI column values you should go with url() method of laravel.
One more cause for this:
If the routes are overridden with the same URI (Unknowingly), it causes this error:
Eg:
Route::get('dashboard', ['uses' => 'SomeController#index', 'as' => 'my.dashboard']);
Route::get('dashboard/', ['uses' => 'SomeController#dashboard', 'as' => 'my.home_dashboard']);
In this case route 'my.dashboard' is invalidate as the both routes has same URI ('dashboard', 'dashboard/')
Solution: You should change the URI for either one
Eg:
Route::get('dashboard', ['uses' => 'SomeController#index', 'as' => 'my.dashboard']);
Route::get('home-dashboard', ['uses' => 'SomeController#dashboard', 'as' => 'my.home_dashboard']);
// See the URI changed for this 'home-dashboard'
Hope it helps some once.
My case is a bit different, since it is not a form but to return a view. Add method ->name('route').
MyView.blade.php looks like this:
CATEGORIES
And web.php routes file is defined like this:
Route::view('admin', 'admin.index')->name('admin');
i had the same issue and find the solution lately.
you should check if your route is rather inside a route::group
like here:
Route::group(['prefix' => 'Auth', 'as' => 'Auth.', 'namespace' => 'Auth', 'middleware' => 'Auth']
if so you should use it in the view file. like here:
!! Form::model(Auth::user(), ['method' => 'PATCH', 'route' => 'Auth.preferences/' . Auth::user()->id]) !!}
In my case the solution was simple:
I have defined the route at the very start of the route.php file.
After moving the named route to the bottom, my app finally saw it.
It means that somehow the route was defined too early.
On a side note:
I had the similar issues where many times I get the error Action method not found, but clearly it is define in controller.
The issue is not in controller, but rather how routes.php file is setup
Lets say you have Controller class set as a resource in route.php file
Route::resource('example', 'ExampleController');
then '/example' will have all RESTful Resource listed here:
http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/controllers#restful-resource-controllers
but now you want to have some definition in form e.g: 'action'=>'ExampleController#postStore' then you have to change this route (in route.php file) to:
Route::controller('example', 'ExampleController');
Please note that the command
php artisan route:list
Or to get more filter down list
php artisan route:list | grep your_route|your_controller
the forth column tells you the names of routes that are registered (usually generated by Route::resource)

Laravel - Can the route and model have different names

My laravel application has a model - Video. It is the main model so the route was named videos. But after the development I discovered that there is a folder on the production server named videos
So now rewriting the url to include index.php in .htaccess does not work.
I cannot change the name of videos folder which is already present.
I cannot change the db table name either. I don't want to do that, its too much work.
Is there a way to change the route name to something else like lvideos or vvideos?
I tried changing it in routes but it seems there are other places where I have to change it. It throws me an error in the controller.
Can anyone suggest a solution for this?
I don't want to give the link with index.php to the users
Thank you.
You will have to change the route anywhere it is referenced.
In the future if you think a route might change, you could use named routes and then reference the route name anywhere you need to use it.
For example:
Route::group(['prefix' => 'videos'], function() {
Route::get('/', [
'uses' => 'VideosController#index',
'as' => 'videos.index',
]);
Route::get('{id}', [
'uses' => 'VideosController#show',
'as' => 'videos.show',
]);
});
Then everywhere you use these routes you use the name, for example in a view:
Videos
The link will still work even if you change the route to Route::group(['prefix => 'iVideos']); Even though the route changed, the name did not.

Laravel says "Route not defined"

In my routes.php I have:
Route::patch('/preferences/{id}', 'UserController#update');
And in the view file (account/preferences.blade.php) I have:
{!! Form::model(Auth::user(), ['method' => 'PATCH', 'route' => '/preferences/' . Auth::user()->id]) !!}
But I'm getting this error:
Route [/preferences/1] not defined
A similar error occurs when calling the route() helper directly:
route('/preferences/' . Auth::user()->id');
I think I'm misunderstanding the docs on this topic but I've defined a route for PATCH requests with a given parameter, and set this in the view correctly. What am I overlooking here?
The route() method, which is called when you do ['route' => 'someroute'] in a form opening, wants what's called a named route. You give a route a name like this:
Route::patch('/preferences/{id}',[
'as' => 'user.preferences.update',
'uses' => 'UserController#update'
]);
That is, you make the second argument of the route into an array, where you specify both the route name (the as), and also what to do when the route is hit (the uses).
Then, when you open the form, you call the route:
{!! Form::model(Auth::user(), [
'method' => 'PATCH',
'route' => ['user.preferences.update', Auth::user()->id]
]) !!}
Now, for a route without parameters, you could just do 'route' => 'routename', but since you have a parameter, you make an array instead and supply the parameters in order.
All that said, since you appear to be updating the current user's preferences, I would advise you to let the handling controller check the id of the currently logged-in user, and base the updating on that - there's no need to send in the id in the url and the route unless your users should need to update the preferences of other users as well. :)
This thread is old but was the first one to come up so I thought id share my solution too. Apart from having named routes in your routes.php file. This error can also occur when you have duplicate URLs in your routes file, but with different names, the error can be misleading in this scenario. Example:
Route::any('official/form/reject-form', 'FormStatus#rejectForm')
->name('reject-form');
Route::any('official/form/accept-form', 'FormStatus#acceptForm')
->name('accept-form');
Changing one of the names solves the problem. Copy, pasting, & fatigue can lead you to this problem :).
If route is not defined, then check web.php routing file.
Route::get('/map', 'NavigationController#map')->name('map'); // note the name() method.
Then you can use this method in the views:
<a class="nav-link" href="{{ route('map') }}">{{ __('Map') }}</a>
PS: the __('Map') is to translate "Map" to the current language.
And the list of names for routes you can see with artisan command:
php artisan route:list
I'm using Laravel 5.7 and tried all of the above answers but nothing seemed to be hitting the spot.
For me, it was a rather simple fix by removing the cache files created by Laravel.
It seemed that my changes were not being reflected, and therefore my application wasn't seeing the routes.
A bit overkill, but I decided to reset all my cache at the same time using the following commands:
php artisan route:clear
php artisan view:clear
php artisan cache:clear
The main one here is the first command which will delete the bootstrap/cache/routes.php file.
The second command will remove the cached files for the views that are stored in the storage/framework/cache folder.
Finally, the last command will clear the application cache.
when you execute the command
php artisan route:list
You will see all your registered routes in there in table format .
Well there you see many columns like Method , URI , Name , Action .. etc.
So basically if you are using route() method that means it will accept only name column values and if you want to use URI column values you should go with url() method of laravel.
One more cause for this:
If the routes are overridden with the same URI (Unknowingly), it causes this error:
Eg:
Route::get('dashboard', ['uses' => 'SomeController#index', 'as' => 'my.dashboard']);
Route::get('dashboard/', ['uses' => 'SomeController#dashboard', 'as' => 'my.home_dashboard']);
In this case route 'my.dashboard' is invalidate as the both routes has same URI ('dashboard', 'dashboard/')
Solution: You should change the URI for either one
Eg:
Route::get('dashboard', ['uses' => 'SomeController#index', 'as' => 'my.dashboard']);
Route::get('home-dashboard', ['uses' => 'SomeController#dashboard', 'as' => 'my.home_dashboard']);
// See the URI changed for this 'home-dashboard'
Hope it helps some once.
My case is a bit different, since it is not a form but to return a view. Add method ->name('route').
MyView.blade.php looks like this:
CATEGORIES
And web.php routes file is defined like this:
Route::view('admin', 'admin.index')->name('admin');
i had the same issue and find the solution lately.
you should check if your route is rather inside a route::group
like here:
Route::group(['prefix' => 'Auth', 'as' => 'Auth.', 'namespace' => 'Auth', 'middleware' => 'Auth']
if so you should use it in the view file. like here:
!! Form::model(Auth::user(), ['method' => 'PATCH', 'route' => 'Auth.preferences/' . Auth::user()->id]) !!}
In my case the solution was simple:
I have defined the route at the very start of the route.php file.
After moving the named route to the bottom, my app finally saw it.
It means that somehow the route was defined too early.
On a side note:
I had the similar issues where many times I get the error Action method not found, but clearly it is define in controller.
The issue is not in controller, but rather how routes.php file is setup
Lets say you have Controller class set as a resource in route.php file
Route::resource('example', 'ExampleController');
then '/example' will have all RESTful Resource listed here:
http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/controllers#restful-resource-controllers
but now you want to have some definition in form e.g: 'action'=>'ExampleController#postStore' then you have to change this route (in route.php file) to:
Route::controller('example', 'ExampleController');
Please note that the command
php artisan route:list
Or to get more filter down list
php artisan route:list | grep your_route|your_controller
the forth column tells you the names of routes that are registered (usually generated by Route::resource)
In my case, I was using a duplicate method. I was trying to update like this:
Route::get('/preferences/{id}', 'UserController#edit');
Route::get('/preferences/{id}', 'UserController#update');
When what I meant to do was something similar to this:
Route::get('/preferences/{id}', 'UserController#edit');
Route::post('/preferences/{id}', 'UserController#update');
Notice the get and post methods are different but the URLs are the same.

Laravel using named routes

Regarding the use of named routes, these 2 lines allow me to access the same page so which is correct?
// Named route
Route::get('test/apples', array('as'=>'apples', 'uses'=>'TestController#getApples'));
// Much simpler
Route::get('apples', 'TestController#getApples');
Is there any reason I should be using named routes if the latter is shorter and less prone to errors?
Named routes are better, Why ?
It's always better to use a named route because insstsead of using the url you may use the name to refer the route, for example:
return Redirect::to('an/url');
Now above code will work but if you would use this:
return Redirect::route('routename');
Then it'll generate the url on the fly so, if you even change the url your code won't be broken. For example, check your route:
Route::get('apples', 'TestController#getApples');
Route::get('apples', array('as' => 'apples.show', 'uses' => 'TestController#getApples'));
Both routes are same but one without name so to use the route without name you have to depend on the url, for example:
return Redirect::to('apples');
But same thing you may do using the route name if your route contains a name, for example:
return Redirect::route('apples.show');
In this case, you may change the url from apples to somethingelse but still your Redirect will work without changing the code.
The only advantage is it is easier to link to, and you can change the URL without going through and changing all of its references. For example, with named routes you can do stuff like this:
URL::route('apples');
Redirect::route('apples');
Form::open(array('route' => 'apples'));
Then, if you update your route, all of your URLs will be updated:
// from
Route::get('test/apples', array('as'=>'apples', 'uses'=>'TestController#getApples'));
// to
Route::get('new/apples', array('as'=>'apples', 'uses'=>'TestController#getApples'));
Another benefit is logically creating a URL with a lot parameters. This allows you to be a lot more dynamic with your URL generation, so something like:
Route::get('search/{category}/{query}', array(
'as' => 'search',
'uses' => 'SearchController#find',
));
$parameters = array(
'category' => 'articles',
'query' => 'apples',
);
echo URL::route('search', $parameters);
// http://domain.com/search/articles/apples
The only reason to name the route is if you need to reference it later. IE: from your page in a view or something, check whether you are in that route.

Laravel 3.x Route issue: page not found even with the route set

I got an annoying problem with a route, for a section of a CMS that I'm developing.
I got routes for all the sections, "products", for example:
Route::get('admin/products', array('as' => 'admin/products', 'uses'=> 'admin.products#index'));
Route::get('admin/products/create', array('as' => 'admin/products/create', 'uses'=> 'admin.products#create'));
Route::get('admin/products/edit/(:num)', array('as' => 'admin/products/edit', 'uses'=> 'admin.products#edit'));
Route::get('admin/products/delete/(:num)', array('as' => 'admin/products/delete', 'uses'=> 'admin.products#delete'));
.. and the related files, like the products controller, the product model and the views.
Everything was doing well until I decided to create a new section, "users". I used the same approach as "products", creating the routes and the other files. In fact I just copied and paste the files, making the changes when needed -- pretty straightforward. By accessing "admin/users" and "admin/users/create", it works as expected. But I can't access "/users/edit/1" and "/users/delete/1". I thought it would be a route problem, but when I tested the route file, I got a 404 even before reaching the route. Here's an example:
Route::get('admin/users/edit/(:num)', function()
{
return "Holy Hell.";
});
"Holy Hell" is never printed into the screen.
Here's the config for "users":
Route::get('admin/users', array('as' => 'admin/users', 'uses'=> 'admin.users#index'));
Route::get('admin/users/edit/(:num)', array('as' => 'admin/users/edit/', 'uses'=> 'admin.users#edit'));
Route::get('admin/users/create', array('as' => 'admin/users/create', 'uses'=> 'admin.users#create'));
Route::get('admin/users/delete/(:num)', array('as' => 'admin/users/delete', 'uses'=> 'admin.users#delete'));
Things that I noticed / Checked:
The index view, where is the users list, got a "URL::to_route('admin/users/edit')" function. I have no errors on the screen, so Laravel understands that the route 'admin/users/edit' is set correctly.
I know that this is not a general problem, because the "edit" and "delete" methods for the other CMS sections have no issues.
The views for these methods are there. So this is not a "file not found" issue.
I wonder if I'm missing something really obvious here. Any ideas? If not, would anyone please tell me how to debug this?
Thank you very much.
EDIT: Heads up
Your routes are in a bad order. Reverse them. Routes are evaluated top down, so anything with admin/products in the route will route to admin.products#index and nothing else.
In your edit method, you need to have the id parameter defined.
Since you didn't post your controller, I'm assuming this is why, since the closure does not have the $id passed to it. Example:
// Required user id:
Route::get('admin/users/edit/(:num)', function($id)
{
return "Holy Hell.";
});
// Optional user id:
Route::get('admin/users/edit/(:num?)', function($id = null)
{
return "Holy Hell.";
});
In your case, you probably don't want the optional part unless you plan on spewing out an error (or redirecting on error).

Categories