Question

I’m confused by my rake routes output. For an example (trimmed):

profil GET    /profil/:id(.:format)     {:action=>"show", :controller=>"profil"}
       PUT    /profil/:id(.:format)     {:action=>"update", :controller=>"profil"}
 login GET    /login(.:format)      {:action=>"new", :controller=>"sessions"}
       POST   /login(.:format)      {:action=>"create", :controller=>"sessions"}
logout GET    /logout(.:format)     {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"sessions"}

I’ve always thought:

• Line 2: Route can be accessed using profil_path with PUT method.
• Line 4: Route can be accessed using login_path with POST method.

Conclusion: Lines with the first column empty (line 2 and 4) would follow the one above it.

However, I’ve been experimenting with adding parameter to the url. So, I added these codes in my routes.rb:

  namespace :admin do
    resources :pengguna_bulk, :only => [:new, :create]
    resources :pengguna do
      collection do
        get 'index/:page', :action => :index
      end
    end
  end

New rake routes output (trimmed):

admin_pengguna_bulk_index POST   /admin/pengguna_bulk(.:format)        {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/pengguna_bulk"}
  new_admin_pengguna_bulk GET    /admin/pengguna_bulk/new(.:format)    {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/pengguna_bulk"}
                          GET    /admin/pengguna/index/:page(.:format) {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
     admin_pengguna_index GET    /admin/pengguna(.:format)             {:action=>"index", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
                          POST   /admin/pengguna(.:format)             {:action=>"create", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
       new_admin_pengguna GET    /admin/pengguna/new(.:format)         {:action=>"new", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
      edit_admin_pengguna GET    /admin/pengguna/:id/edit(.:format)    {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
           admin_pengguna GET    /admin/pengguna/:id(.:format)         {:action=>"show", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
                          PUT    /admin/pengguna/:id(.:format)         {:action=>"update", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}
                          DELETE /admin/pengguna/:id(.:format)         {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"admin/pengguna"}

My question is, why is the 3rd route looks like it’s under the 2nd route? Is it empty because Rails do not know what to name it and I’d have to use get 'index/:page', :action => :index, :as => :page to name it?

So, this means, route with an empty first column doesn’t always follow the above path?

Answer 1

I’ve always thought:

• Line 2: Route can be accessed using profil_path with PUT method.
• Line 4: Route can be accessed using login_path with POST method.

Conclusion: Lines with the first column empty (line 2 and 4) would
follow the one above it.

Everything’s correct except the conclusion. profil_path expands to /profil/:id(.:format). If it is called with method GET it responds to your first route, if its called with method PUT it responds to your second route.

But same doesn’t hold true for second set of routes. You don’t have any named helper for /admin/pengguna/index/:page(.:format). If you want a named helper, you should define the route like:

get 'index/:page', :action => :index, :as => :what_ever_named_helper_you_want