multiple nested resources.

[dgm]

I just discovered that filter_resource_access provides some default
objects that I had been creating by hand, but I'm not sure it is doing
it all.

can the :nested option take an array of resources?

I have a resource that can be nested in several different ways... I'm
a fan of polymorphic_path :)

[Steffen Bartsch]

Am Donnerstag, 19. November 2009 schrieb dgm:
> can the :nested option take an array of resources?
>
> I have a resource that can be nested in several different ways... I'm
> a fan of polymorphic_path :)

No, filter_resource_access is not meant to handle polymorphic controllers.

For those cases, you need to setup your own before_filters to load the parent
object as appropriate. Then, you can implement your own
"new_#{controller_name.singularize}_for_collection" and
"new_#{controller_name.singularize}_from_params" methods.

Then, you can use the filter_resource_access mechanism with your custom
behavior concerning the parent resource.

If you have that one running, please share it on this list. Even better,
improve the filter_resource_access method to handle multiple nested_ins.

Steffen

[dgm]

On Nov 20, 2:51 am, Steffen Bartsch <sbart...@tzi.de> wrote:

> If you have that one running, please share it on this list.  Even better,
> improve the filter_resource_access method to handle multiple nested_ins.

What I would envison would be :nested_in
[:person_id, :household_id, :organization_id]

would create something like this:

@parent = case
when params[:person_id] then Person.find_by_id(params
[:person_id])
when params[:household_id] then Household.find_by_id(params
[:household_id])
when params[:organization_id] then Organization.find_by_id
([:organization_id])
end

I think it looks like changing in_controller.rb around ` unless options
[:nested_in].blank?`
to loop through the array and determine which one is active (since
only one should be) and then operate on that.
Furthermore , load_parent_controller_object should set @parent in
addition to whichever one of [@person,@organization, @household] it
currently sets.

Is there anything else that I'm missing?

[Steffen Bartsch]

Am Freitag, 20. November 2009 schrieb dgm:
> What I would envison would be :nested_in
> [:person_id, :household_id, :organization_id]
>
> would create something like this:
>
> @parent = case
> when params[:person_id] then Person.find_by_id(params
> [:person_id])
> when params[:household_id] then Household.find_by_id(params
> [:household_id])
> when params[:organization_id] then Organization.find_by_id
> ([:organization_id])
> end
>
> I think it looks like changing in_controller.rb around ` unless options
> [:nested_in].blank?`
> to loop through the array and determine which one is active (since
> only one should be) and then operate on that.

I think that the loop rather needs to be inside the
load_parent_controller_object because the filter_resource_access will only be
called on initialization. Also, up to now, the instance variable is named
after the respective parent resource name.

> Furthermore , load_parent_controller_object should set @parent in
> addition to whichever one of [@person,@organization, @household] it
> currently sets.
>
> Is there anything else that I'm missing?

new_controller_object_from_params and _for_collection needs to be aware of the
different options as those get the parent object from its instance variable.

Most likely that should be all.

Steffen

[dgm]

On Nov 20, 3:37 pm, Steffen Bartsch <sbart...@tzi.de> wrote:

> Most likely that should be all.

I'm mostly there, but it didn't create the record in the :through
table...

Also, it appears that the current implementation has a problem with
viewing the resource un-nested, is that right?

[dgm]

On Nov 20, 3:37 pm, Steffen Bartsch <sbart...@tzi.de> wrote:

> new_controller_object_from_params and _for_collection needs to be aware of the
> different options as those get the parent object from its instance variable.

I have a basic patch done, I sent a pull request.

I still have one problem

Permission denied: index not allowed for #<User id: 689986156, login:
"dgm", email: "dgm", person_id: 1180170431, crypted_password:
"00742970dc9e6319f8019fd54864d3ea740f04b1", salt:
"7e3041ebc2fc05a40c60028e2c4901a81035d3cd", created_at: "2009-11-19
19:06:11", updated_at: "2009-11-20 19:06:11", remember_token: nil,
remember_token_expires_at: nil, activation_code:
"8f24789ae988411ccf33ab0c30fe9106fab32e9a", activated_at: nil> on
#<PhoneNumber id: nil, phone_number: nil, phone_type: nil, private:
nil, note: nil, updated_by: nil, created_at: nil, updated_at: nil>.


role :staff do
has_permission_on [:people], :to =>
[:index, :show, :edit, :update, :create, :new] do
if_attribute :user => is { user }
end
has_permission_on [:phone_numbers], :to =>
[:index, :show, :edit, :update, :create, :new] do
if_attribute :people => {:user => is { user }}
end
end


I'm probably missing something obvious.

[Steffen Bartsch]

Am Freitag, 20. November 2009 schrieb dgm:

> Also, it appears that the current implementation has a problem with
> viewing the resource un-nested, is that right?

Not to my knowledge. Do you have a failing test for that issue?

Steffen

[Steffen Bartsch]

Am Freitag, 20. November 2009 schrieb dgm:

> I have a basic patch done, I sent a pull request.

Looks nice. Can you provide a matching test case?

Steffen

[dgm]

I'm still not very fluent with tests... and I see this broke a bunch
of them due to mocks.

[dgm]

Shouldn't new_controller_object_for_collection create a pluralized
instance variable?

like @companies?