Rails core - Sep 2009 - [PATCH] Improve id creation for form tags when index specified

https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/3226-form_for-for-new-objects-with-index-set#ticket-3226-2

I was using form_for to create multiple objects on the same page.  All of
them were of the same active record class. Even tho I was using index on the
form_for, it created several form blocks with the same id
new_object_class.    This patch adds the _#{index} to the id name if an
index is specified..

Examples and patch are in the lighthouse ticket and includes the appropriate
test case.


Best Regards,
Stephen Blackstone

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Ok, this is bizarre timing. I was thinking about this problem last  
night, and I "dream-coded" that I suffixed ALL id fields with:   
(object.respond_to?(:to_param) and ( _id = object.to_param ) ?  
"_#{_id}" : "" )

I wonder if there''s room in your patch for something feeding  
automatically from the object?  As well as having the explicit option  
with the :index value, perhaps you could also accept :index => true  
and use .to_param of the object in question in that case?

Jason

On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/3226-form_for-for-new-objects-with-index-set
> #ticket-3226-2
>
> I was using form_for to create multiple objects on the same page.   
> All of them were of the same active record class. Even tho I was  
> using index on the form_for, it created several form blocks with the  
> same id new_object_class.    This patch adds the _#{index} to the id  
> name if an index is specified..
>
> Examples and patch are in the lighthouse ticket and includes the  
> appropriate test case.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Stephen Blackstone
>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I''m not sure about passing :index => true since form_for passes
along the
value of index to fields_for...

It seems like this is already the case for forms when the object is not a
new object, i.e.

form_for(@user) ..... etc

yields

<form action="/users/1" class="edit_user"
id="edit_user_1"

the only case where we seem to end up with an ambiguous form tag is multiple
forms to create the same object type.. or am I missing something?


Stephen Blackstone


On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jason King <smathy.werp@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ok, this is bizarre timing. I was thinking about this problem last night,
> and I *"dream-coded"* that I suffixed ALL id fields with: 
*(object.respond_to?(:to_param)
> and ( _id = object.to_param ) ? "_#{_id}" : "" )*
> I wonder if there''s room in your patch for something feeding
automatically
> from the object?  As well as having the explicit option with the
*:index*value, perhaps you could also accept
> *:index => true* and use *.to_param* of the object in question in that
> case?
>
> Jason
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/3226-form_for-for-new-objects-with-index-set#ticket-3226-2
>
> I was using form_for to create multiple objects on the same page.  All of
> them were of the same active record class. Even tho I was using index on
the
> form_for, it created several form blocks with the same id
> new_object_class.    This patch adds the _#{index} to the id name if an
> index is specified..
>
> Examples and patch are in the lighthouse ticket and includes the
> appropriate test case.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Stephen Blackstone
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Yes, of course, you''re right.  I had been thinking of the edit  
scenario in fields_for (which I think would be cool if it did what I  
suggested when passed true).  The excitement of the coincidence  
confused me, and I didn''t really read properly that you were talking  
about new objects.

+1 on your patch.  It makes sense to be consistent between that <form>  
and what is already done in <input> tags.

On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I''m not sure about passing :index => true since form_for passes
> along the value of index to fields_for...
>
> It seems like this is already the case for forms when the object is  
> not a new object, i.e.
>
> form_for(@user) ..... etc
>
> yields
> <form action="/users/1" class="edit_user"
id="edit_user_1"
> the only case where we seem to end up with an ambiguous form tag is  
> multiple forms to create the same object type.. or am I missing  
> something?
>
>
> Stephen Blackstone
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jason King <smathy.werp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Ok, this is bizarre timing. I was thinking about this problem last  
> night, and I "dream-coded" that I suffixed ALL id fields with:   
> (object.respond_to?(:to_param) and ( _id = object.to_param ) ?  
> "_#{_id}" : "" )
>
> I wonder if there''s room in your patch for something feeding  
> automatically from the object?  As well as having the explicit  
> option with the :index value, perhaps you could also accept :index  
> => true and use .to_param of the object in question in that case?
>
> Jason
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/3226-form_for-for-new-objects-with-index-set
>> #ticket-3226-2
>>
>> I was using form_for to create multiple objects on the same page.   
>> All of them were of the same active record class. Even tho I was  
>> using index on the form_for, it created several form blocks with  
>> the same id new_object_class.    This patch adds the _#{index} to  
>> the id name if an index is specified..
>>
>> Examples and patch are in the lighthouse ticket and includes the  
>> appropriate test case.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Stephen Blackstone
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---