similar to: Routing fails for files under public without file extensions

All, I have a link that used to work but now generates a routing error. The link URL is a straightforward controller/action/id and of course, I have map.connect '':controller/:action/:id'' in my routes.rb file. When I click on this link, I get a routing error. What''s potentially interesting about this URL is that the controller name is mixed case. Class is

All, Thanks for any help in advance. I have what I think is a very straightforward partial template and I can''t figure out why a text_field call within it doesn''t work. Here is my calling template: lists.rhtml <div id="target_lists"> <%= render(:partial => "target_lists", :collection => @target_lists) %> </div> In the partial

All, I''m populating a view with checkboxes in a list. I want to be able to assign to my has_many relationship using the post values of these checkboxes. Essentially, I want to populate the relationship table which will create the correct join values in my model. Here is my check_box_tag code: <%= check_box_tag("@current_job[target_list_ids][]",

All, I have a route specified as: map.connect '':folder/:filename'', :folder => /htmlfiles/, :controller => "eSimply", :action => "preview_HTML" I expect it to invoke the "preview_HTML" action in the "eSimply" controller. Given an argument of "htmlfiles/xyz.html", it keeps saying that it can''t find an

All, I''ve decided to jump into Migrations before I get too far along on the DB side of things. I already have some tables built, and I went ahead and built the migration that would have created them from scratch, and I made sure that there was a self.down section to drop them. I wanted to verify that I could roll back so I figured I would use rake to drop these pre-existing tables

I have a regular plain old static HTML file under my RAILS_ROOT that I would like to serve as itself (without any dynamic anything). How can I write a route to "pass the request through" succesfully. I tried map.connect ''path_to_file'', :controller => nil, :action => nil, :id => nil but that didn''t work. Also, note that I have this route

I have a side navigation bar with links embedded in it like the following: <%= link_to( ''Create Job'', { :controller => ''eSimply'', :action => ''upload'' }) %> This link now shows a routing exception Recognition failed for "/eSimply/upload" This link has worked for over through Rails

I am trying to put some smarts around a call to <%= error_messages_for %> so that when I first come into this page i.e. when my instance variable @target_list has not been defined yet, the page doesn''t break. I''m doing this: <% if @target_list? %> <%= error_messages_for ''target_list'' %> <% end %> I get a syntax error on line 1.

All, In a template, I have <%= text_field :target_list, :DateReceived, { :title => ''uploaded_at'', :class => ''target_list_info'', :disabled => ''true'' } %> Here is the DateReceived method on my

All, I have a left navigation partial that I want to dynamically generate CSS classes for based on the current controller action. In my ERb template, I have <DIV class="<%= get_menu_display_style(''login_form'') %>"> In application.rb, I have the method get_menu_display_style defined as: public def get_menu_display_style(action_requested)

I have the following form_remote_tag: <%= form_remote_tag(:update => ''target_lists'', :url => { :action => ''upload_list'' }, :html => { :multipart => true }) %> I then submit using a regular submit tag <%= submit_tag ''Upload List'' %> Does the Form.serialize call that is

I would like to set up some my app. to display a standalone HTML page - not rendered through RoR per se. Something like render(:inline => some_Javascript_function... then in the Javascript some_Javascript_function, I want to open up a popup with the URL I specify. However, because it is a relative URL, it is going through the RoR routing algorithm. I don''t want that - can I

Hi List; Can asterisk hear (receive) calls on two IP addresses? How? If yes, then: If I have a VPN router, and my Asterisk server connected to two network cards, one has a private IP address (192.168.0.2) connected to the VPN router (192.168.0.1) and another network card has a private IP address (193.111.196.249) connected directly to the outside default gateway (193.111.196.240), where the VPN

All, I have two ActiveRecord objects. TargetList has_many Targets Targets belongs_to TargetList I''ve specified belongs_to :target_list, :foreign_key => ''DataSetID'' Queries generated by various methods in target_list do not seem to see the foreign_key name and keep trying to query my Target table using "target_list_id" (the default foreign

I just took my HABTM and turned it into a :through since my join table has another "non-joiny" attribute. I went from this: has_many_and_belongs_to :jobs, :join_table => ''tablename'', :foreign_key => ''x'', :association_foreign_key => ''y'' to this: has_many :jobs, :through =>

Just wondering if someone could answer this question for me. I would like to route public addresses only. Their will be no firewall but maybe a few rules to deny certain types of traffic. Here is the configuration of the router. My provider gave a me a /30 link to their router also they gave me a /25 network for my customers public ip''s Their cisco router has static route entrys for my

On 12/25/2015 12:44 PM, Joey wrote: > > i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices. > > I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default > gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the > incoming device > > Could i realize this with firewalld? Or directly iptables? No you can not do that via firewalld or iptables. The problem is

On 12/26/2015 08:16 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > you could use some iptables rules to mark a connection for example by > the source MAC address per new connections which would be a specific > router and by that mark the connection, then in the routing level > decide which default gateway to use for this specific connection. While that's true, you still have to select the

On 12/27/2015 07:49 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > On 27/12/2015 22:49, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> While that's true, you still have to select the default route using "ip >> rule". And since you can do that using the source address for outgoing >> packets, there's no reason to mark them. It's completely redundant. > Can you match the MAC address?? in ip

On 12/28/2015 01:19 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote: > Are you sure? You assume the destination of the incoming traffic is > the gateway. What if it isn't? Can you explain what you mean? Not only am I not assuming that, I can hardly conceive of any situation in which a host will receive traffic for its own gateway.