I am trying to build up my routes file and for the application we are building we may have a route such as:
/services/{game}/{id}
Is there a way to have that {game} parameter, but not actually pass it to the controller? Its basically there, but doesn't have to be anything specific and the controller doesn't need to know its there, it's purely for the users eye to make their URL make sense.
That is perfectly possible, you can catch it in the controller without doing anything with it, however you will have to catch it.
Do what Bielco said or just minify your route using slugs instead 2 parameters.
For example:
Game: Skyrim Legendary Edition
Slug (unique): skyrim-legendary-edition
Your route: /services/game/skyrim-legendary-edition
In Laravel routes.php
Route::get('services/games/{slug}', 'ServicesController#showGame');
Related
Coming from a straight PHP and Drupal background, I am recently learning the Symfony2 framework. Currently I am in the routing chapter of the book. This is probably a simple question.
What are some real world use cases for why one would want to generate URLs in a Symfony app? I understand the code but I'm having a bit of trouble determining its practical applications.
I'm referring to this section should you need a refresher.
As always, thank you!
P.S. Symfony is amazing. :)
Basically, you need to generate a URL whenever you need to link to anywhere in your application.
Let's say that you have an application that needs to manage some users. This means that you will probably have URLs like /user/create, /user/edit/(user id) and /user/remove/(user id).
Whenever you display a link to edit a user you need to know on what URL you can find the page that allows you to edit a user. So you need to link to /user/edit/(user id). One solution would be to have this as a fixed link so that in your code you could just write
edit this user
But what if you want to change this URL scheme? Let's say someone is unhappy with the term "user", after all the humans managed by this system are not only users, they are actually "person"s! So now you need to change all the URLs containing "user". Probably there are quite a few places in your app where you have had to hardcode these URLs and now you will need to find and change all of them. Eugh.
But fear not, for Symfony routing comes to the rescue!
Instead of hardcoding these URLs, we can simply let the Symfony router generate them for us. This means that we first need to tell Symfony which routes we have, e.g. by adding the following YAML code to our routes config file:
user_edit:
path: /user/edit/{userId}
defaults: { _controller: AppBundle:User:edit }
requirements:
userId: \d+
This tells our application "Okay, whenever somebody requests a page that looks like /user/edit/{userId}, then you need to call the editAction method in our UserController class in the AppBundle namespace and you need to pass the userId as a parameter. Oh, and also you should only call the controller if userId is a valid integer with at least one number."
So this is how Symfony knows how to map URLs to controllers. But the goodness that comes along with it is that we can use this information for the reverse way as well.
Usually, in our application we do not really care about what the URL looks like for a certain action we want to perform. All we know is that when clicking a certain link, then the browser should jump to a page that allows me to edit a user. And since we just defined a route that takes us right there, we can have Symfony generate the correct URL to achieve just that.
So in your view you can now discard the hardcoded URL from earlier and instead replace it with a route generated by the Symfony router:
edit this user
Now whenever you need to change what the URL actually looks like all you need to do is edit your routing config and not a lot of separate views.
Because, imagine you want to change a given page URL and you've hardcoded it in 10 Twig templates. You will have to modify all these files. On the opposite, when using the routing component:
You would only have to change the URL where the route is defined.
The routing component "takes" care of the current environment you are using (dev, prod...)
Also note that is a bad practice to "switch environment", a typical issue is to hardcode an URL in a Javascript. In this case you can expose your Symfony2 routes in the Javascript by using a bundle like FOSJsRoutingBundle.
I almost immediately realized their use and now I feel silly. :) For those who stop by this question in the future:
Notes about Generating URLs:
Similar to the Drupal l() function, sometimes you need to generate links inside your application based on a variety of parameters.
You don't always want to hardcode your links in case you decide to change paths sometime down the line.
In summary: Think of this as an alternative to using straight anchor tags with href elements all over the app and, instead, keeping things dynamic.
Use case
In the project I'm working I use generateUrl to redirect the user
after creating, editing an entity.
For example after creating a Service entity, I redirect the user to the view
of the just created Service.
Controller
return $this->redirect($this->generateUrl('myentity_view', array('id'=> $id)));
Additional note
In twig files, you can use the path function which call the routing component and generate url with given route name and parameters.
I'm coming From CodeIgniter to Laravel.
So, is a bad idea using automatic routes to all of controllers?
Route::controller(Controller::detect());
Should I use this instead creating routes in routes.php?
Yes this is bad.
Controller::detect() is actually not present in Laravel 4 because it is a bit broken.
detect() will go through your filesystem and return controller files, but this is a bad idea because the order you define your routes matters. If you have any nested controllers you will find this breaking very easily.
detect() will also return files in a different order depending on the file system, so this leads to a lot of unpredictability.
I would argue that you should define all your routes any ways, it is a lot easier to read and debug.
One of interesting things about Laravel that CI does not have is that for certain pages, you can route directly to the view without needing a controller at all. Think about static pages like 'About Us'. CodeIgniter would need you to set up a controller + view for that, even though the controller will do barely anything. In case of Laravel, you can route directly to a view in this case.
Setting up routes manually will allow you to set these short-circuited routes.
Automatic detection is a bad idea.
You can use routes or use Route::controller('mycontroller') or and array of controllers like Route::controller(array('mycontroller', mycontroller2');
Then you get the benefit, without the autodetect.
in laravel 4 :
you can use Restful Controller like documentation http://laravel.com/docs/controllers#restful-controllers
But
Route::controller() must take two parameters as minimum requirement
first parameter stands for URL respond to ,and second parameter is name of controller
also
you can write third parameter into Route::controller() is an array with names of actions (name of action with HTTP verb )and routes names for this actions
ex:
Route::controller('users','UsersController',array(
'getUsers' =>"listUsers" ,
));
route name for getUsers action is listUsers
Below is a good example to follow for CRUD and general purpose routing
type php arisan controller:make SampleController
edit routes.php and add
Route::resource('sample', 'SampleController');
Then type
php artisan routes to show the newly created routes
I have my own routing rules in routes.php, defined for all the pages that should be accessible via URL, such as mywebsite/blog/ and mywebsite/blog/category/category-name, i.e. the structure of my whole website is covered by my custom routes.
Now, I have a lot of elements that make use of requestAction, such as
$websiteabstract = $this -> requestAction(array(
'controller' => 'assets',
'action' => 'displayHomeAbstract'
));
This gives me an error Error: Controller could not be found, probably because I have not defined a route for /assets/displayHomeAbstract. But why do I have to define a custom route for that, when I explicitly state the name of the controller and the action? Shouldn't that bypass the routing altogether?
Either I have not understand Routing at all. Or do I really have to define ALL the possible routes (even those that are only used by requestAction) in my routes.php? I mean, I don't want to allow users to directly access mywebsite/assets/displayHomeAbstract anyway, only via an Element.
Thank you
EDIT: Here is my routes.php http://pastebin.com/aAKBwNZJ
Please have a look at line 128, this is exactly what I do not want since /assets/displayHomeAbstract is ONLY accessed via requestAction.
EDIT: And this is the element, that makes the request: http://pastebin.com/0tK5dYJk
Okay, after extensive discussion with the devs in IRC, I think I understand this well enough to explain to you:
You do have to define your custom routes for your requestAction in this case. requestAction is emulating a full request. It dispatches a request as if accessed using the string url every time, even when the url provided is an array. The book is referring to how when you have a custom route defined in addition to using the default routes (the last line of routes.php), you can use array urls to be agnostic of those routes. However, these array urls rely on the default routes.php in the /lib/ folder and are used to construct a url string. If you're going to have a custom routing pattern, you have to construct the url strings on your own.
Note: the comments below were from earlier versions of this answer.
The key to your problem is understanding the scope of Cake's routing and how it work.
When you define a route in CakePHP, it isn't just used for mapping URLs to controllers. It's also used by the Router for things like generating link addresses and, in your case, mapping the path supplied to requestAction() to a controller. Behind the scenes, Cake is creating a URL string based on your parameters, and then passes it off to the Router to find the correct controller. Since no such route exists, it fails.
As a solution, I would actually recommend not using a controller for that logic. Depending on what it does, a component or a helper may be a better place.
Look at line 156. You commented out the line that loads CakePHP's default routes.
I'm working on a Zend Framework API and need to follow a particular format for URLs, so I was hoping for some help regarding how to configure the routing correctly.
http://example.com/module/controller/method/actionNameHere
The above URL would need to route to the function actionNameHereAction.
Any help is appreciated.
The beauty of routing is that it gives you the tools for hiding exactly those pieces of information you are putting into your URL.
Apart from that, as far as I know ZF routes by default so that your URL would end up in ...
the action with name method of
the controller with name controller of
the module with name module
So either your example-URL is complicating things or you are almost there.
B/c actionNameHere would be a paramter you could handle in your action with name "methodAction".
But I think you want your URL to look like:
example.com/module/controller/actionNameHere
In order to produce the URLs needed, I ended up creating a custom Dispatcher, as it wasn't in the routing that URLs were being converted from actionNameHere to actionnamehereAction, but in the dispatcher. I extended the standard dispatcher and overrode this behaviour so that the action name in the URL remained case-sensitive.
Currently in my CI project I have a single controller that handles all things account. Such-as register, login, activation, etc.
My routes work as such...
domain.com/account/login/ or domain.com/account/register/
How can I remove account from the route while also being about to remove the controller from other pages.
I basically want the controller to always be removed. One of my reasons for this is SEO, search engine rank the importunateness of a page based on how deep it is in a website.
The only way I have seem to achieve this is to do some thing like route['activate'] = 'account/activate'; for every single page, which would be a huge hassle.
$route['^(?!other|controllers).*'] = “account/$0″;
Try this :
$route['(:any)'] = "account/$1";
The answer to your question is that you DO have to explicitly set the routes.
How is it going to know which controller a given function is in????
You have to tell it.
use mod_rewrite (if the controller is always the same name)
Ok, I can think of one way to do this, but it is probably gonna be more of a pain than just writing out routes for each function.
You need to extend the Router.php with application/core/MY_Router.php and overide the _validate_request() method. Which basically decides if this this is a valid route or not.
it does a check to see if the controller class exists then fails if it doesn't exist.
You need to replace this with some code which assumes no controller segment, then scans thru each of your controllers and checks if it contains the method called (it will be segment 1, since theres no controller).
Now the tricky part, at this point in the CI lifecycle your controller obviously isnt loaded, so you cant examine it using method_exists() yet.
You need to load your controllers one at a time, and then for each one run
method_exists($loaded_class, $method_name)
and if its true, then set then go ahead and call:
$this->set_class('the_name_of_the_scanned_class_which_had_the_method');
Then CI can keep going on as normal and it will load your methods without the user ever know what controller it loaded from.
.. probably not worth the hassle imho. A much easier solution would be to just have one controller and one route to that controller.