I have the following Route:
Route::resource('projects.deliveries.tasks', 'TaskController');
And of course if I want to create a task, my URL looks like this:
http:://test.dev/projects/1/deliveries/3/tasks/create
For Project Number 1 and delivery number 3.
http://i.imgur.com/RlHHY31.jpg
But I don't want the number to show up in the URL, because tasks should be creatable, without authentication or login.
Is there a way to hide these numbers, so that I get a clean URL like this:
http:://test.dev/projects/delivereis/tasks/create
And Laravel understands from my logic, that it is Project 1 and devivery 3 for which a task is to be created?
If you want to do this, you should probably specify your routes manually. Using Route::resource() is great if you're absolutely going to use the resource as intended (with verbose routes) but it doesn't provide you with much flexibility. In fact for most projects it's actually recommended that you do define all your routes manually to give you the most control (and it's also great self-documentation in your routes.php file).
Route::get('projects/deliveries/tasks/create', ['as' => 'projects.deliveries.tasks.create', 'uses' => 'TasksController#create']);
Route::post('projects/deliveries/tasks', ['as' => 'projects.deliveries.tasks.store', 'uses' => 'TasksController#store']);
Related
For middleware reasons I decided to expand my current Route::resource routes on Laravel 7. However, I do want to make sure routes are expanded properly and identically so there are no issues in future. I came up with this list of routes :
Route::get('checklists', 'ChecklistController#index')->name('checklists.index');
Route::get('checklists/create', 'ChecklistController#create')->name('checklists.create');
Route::post('checklists', 'ChecklistController#store')->name('checklists.store');
Route::get('checklists/{checklist}', 'ChecklistController#show')->name('checklists.show');
Route::get('checklists/{checklist}/edit', 'ChecklistController#edit')->name('checklists.edit');
Route::match(['PUT', 'PATCH'], 'checklists/{checklist}', ['as' => 'checklists.update', 'uses' => 'ChecklistController#update']);
Route::delete('checklists/{checklist}', 'ChecklistController#destroy')->name('checklists.destroy');
instead of:
Route::resource('checklists', 'ChecklistController');
It may be a bit weird question, but could anyone confirm if this expanded version would generate an exact replacement for Route::resource? And if not, what else do I need to do to make sure it works exactly same? I could not find that information.
Maybe not an exact answer to your question, however I think your code would be a lot cleaner if you just used what is needed and appended the remainder
Route::resource('checklists', 'ChecklistController')->except('update');
Route::match(['PUT', 'PATCH'], 'checklists/{checklist}', ['as' => 'checklists.update', 'uses' => 'ChecklistController#update']);
I have got a Laravel website a: www.website.com and b: www.website.co.kr.
As you can see website b has a different extension 'co.kr'.
Both urls route to the same server. Most pages are the same for both websites, but some pages are different.
I want to handle this in my routing.
So for example:
www.website.com/about-us
www.website.co.kr/about-us
Shows a different page.
Right now I handle this using a group:
$co_kr_routes = function () {
Route::get('/about-us', [
'uses' => 'Frontend\Korea\PagesController#getAboutUs',
]);
};
Route::group(['domain' => 'www.website.co.kr'], $co_kr_routes);
//Default
Route::get('/about-us', [
'uses' => 'Frontend\PagesController#getAboutUs',
]);
This works, but I am not satisfied with the solution and it is causing me not being able to cache the routes 'php artisan route:cache' because of the duplicate route '/about-us'.
My question is:
Is there a nicer way to handle different extensions but same server resulting in showing a different page?
I didn't find much help googling the issue.
Right now I have to very specifically give the .co.kr domain to the group but it would be nicer if I could filter on 'co.kr' instead of the full domain.
I thought a solution would be handling this in the controller method itself, but handling this using routes sounds like the way to go. I dont think the controller should know or care if a request was made from a .com or .co.kr extension.
I need to create a route with some fixed and dynamic parts. Basically I need to be flexible on the second segment on the url. If the url starts with 'products/test....' then the route has to go to the PageController, all other routes starting with 'products/....' have to go to the ProductController.
// Something like this:
Route::any('products/".starts_with($slug, 'test'), [
'uses' => 'PageController#show'
])->where('slug', '(.*)?');
Route::get('products/{slug}', [
'uses' => 'ProductController#show'
]);
Is this possible in Laravel 5?
In Laravel 5 we use Middleware as helpers for routes.
There are some examples in the default installation that you can adapt for your code. This is the best approach for this issue.
I have the following in my routes.php
Route::resource('g', 'GameController');
I link to these generated routes via HTML::linkRoute('g.index', 'Title', $slug) which produces a link to http://domain/g/demo-slug
What I am looking to do is verify if it is possible to have the prefix be declared in one place so I'm not hunting for links if a URL structure were to change.
For example, I would want to change http://domain/g/demo-slug to http://domain/video-games/demo-slug
I was hoping to use the similar functionality with the standard routes, but that does not seem to be available to resource routes.
Route::get('/', array('as' => 'home', 'uses' => 'HomeController#getUpdated'));
Route::group() takes a 'prefix'. If you put the Route::resource() inside, that should work.
Tangent, I find this reads better:
Route::get('/', array('uses' => 'HomeController#getUpdated', 'as' => 'home'));
As far as I know it's true you can't have named routes for a resource controllers (sitation needed) but you can contain them in a common space using Route::group() with a prefix. You can even supply a namespace, meaning you can swap out an entire api with another quickly.
Route::group(array(
'prefix' => 'video-games',
'before' => 'auth|otherFilters',
'namespace' => '' // Namespace of all classes used in closure
), function() {
Route::resource('g', 'GameController');
});
Update
It looks like resource controllers are given names internally, which would make sense as they are referred to internally by names not urls. (php artisan routes and you'll see the names given to resource routes).
This would explain why you can't name or as it turns out is actually the case, rename resource routes.
I guess you're probably not looking for this but Route:group is your best bet to keep collections of resources together with a common shared prefix, however your urls will need to remain hard coded.
You can give custom names to resource routes using the following syntax
Resource::route('g', 'GameController', ['names' => [
'index' => 'games.index',
'create' => 'games.create',
...
]])
This means you can use {!! route('games.index') !!} in your views even if you decided to change the URL pattern to something else.
Documented here under Named resource routes
I'm trying to understand routing in Laravel 4. I read a good post here on StackOverflow and a link to beware the route to evil, a post about manually specifying routes. I like the idea of specifying my routes manually and having the routes.php act as documentation. But it seems like I need to be cautious about the order of my Routes if I'm going to specify my own instead of using Route::resource() If I have the new or create route before the show then I won't be routed to the show because of the variable in URI? The order in which the routes are defined is important right?
// This will not work if I try and browse to dogs/new
Route::get('dogs', array('as' => 'dogs', 'uses' => 'DogsController#index'));
Route::get('dogs/{dogs}', array('as' => 'dog', 'uses' => 'DogsController#show'));
Route::get('dogs/new', array('as' => 'new_dog', 'uses' => 'DogsController#create'));
It seems I need to make sure that the dogs/new comes before the dogs/{dogs} for new to return correctly. I'm not clear on what {dogs} does or that's different from (:any) or {any} I've seen a few different uses in examples and pseudo code. I see that /new is the same as {...} when the route is before the more specific is the {} like a wildcard in Laravel 4? Is the (:...) the old way?
As an aside I've noticed a different naming convention from some of the examples I've seen when I run php artisan routes with a resource route like Route::resource('photos', 'PhotosController'); The method and named route for post to index to a create a new resource is named photos.store and #store. The method and named route for a link to a form to create a new resource is photos.create and #create. Is that Laravel 4 thing or conventions in other frameworks?
Route::get('dogs/{dogs}', array('as' => 'dog', 'uses' => 'DogsController#show'));
The above url expecting a parameter after dogs segment.
for example: http://laravel.com/dogs/xyz, http://laravel.com/dogs/new
after dogs url segment, Laravel will accept anything. So, your another routing will never executed for the route parameter.
Route::get('dogs/new', array('as' => 'new_dog', 'uses' => 'DogsController#create'));
More about route parameters:
http://laravel.com/docs/routing#route-parameters
Resource Controllers
Laravel and Ruby on rails support resource full routing. I think, Tailor borrow the resource full routing idea from Ruby on rails.
The following routes will generate if you use resource controller:
index
create
store
update
show
edit
destroy
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html
http://laravel.com/docs/controllers#resource-controllers