I had searched for how to add parameters to resource route
Route::resource('posts','PostsController');
// became
Route::resource('posts/category.post','PostsController');
now , by the category.post I can declare additional parameters to all resource routes
but they are required , my question is how to make them optional ?
I tried something like this
Route::resource('posts/category?.post','PostsController');
to make the category parameter be an optional one , but that didn't work with me .
how I can do so ?
thank you .
You can try this, not sure though..
Route::resource('posts', 'PostsController')->except(['store' ]);
Route::post('posts/category', 'PostsController#store');
Resource route is not just a "route"
You may see it as a route group, but it is predefined and can easily be implemented when you have a normal resource controller
If you want to change the parameters you'll have to define the routes individually
Then you can make the parameters optional as needed
Route::post('/posts/category/{post?}, 'PostsController#store');
See the following docs
https://laravel.com/docs/7.x/routing#parameters-optional-parameters
Related
I define route for update profile logic, when I used first logic It does not work but the use of second logic works fine. So I don't know what is the difference between those.
1. Route::post('/profile', 'ProfileController#update');
2. Route::post('/profile', 'ProfileController#update')->name('profile');
The only difference between them, the name,
so If you put in form action something like {{ route('profile') }} you mean: go to route that has name profile.
Read this for more details.
Routes with name eg Route::post('/profile', 'ProfileController#update')->name('profile');
can be accessed in blade using {{route('profile')}}
whereas the other one can only be accessed using url(). e.g
{{url('/profile')}}
The second one is a 'named route'. It allows you to reference your route by a name.
Laravel 5.7 Docs - Routing - Named Routes
Well the obvious difference is the added "->name('profile')" named route to your second line. You have tagged this post with laravel-5.7 so I have linked the documentation for this version: https://laravel.com/docs/5.7/routing#named-routes
It appears to me that perhaps you have some logic in the update function of your ProfileController like so:
if ($request->route()->named('profile')) {
//
}
Which would change the outcome of the request. Hope this helps, best regards.
I'm setting up a new route system.
Route::get('/{cat1Url}', 'CategoryController#showCat1')->name('showCat1');
Route::get('/{productUrl}', 'ProductController#showProduct')->name('showProduct');
My sef link is after "/"
But,
{{ route('showProduct',[$p->pr_url]) }}
This method not working with route name. Working only upside route.
I don't want use
"/cat/myVariable"
or
"/product/myVariable"
Can't I use route name to work this way?
What is the solution to this?
In this way, if you make a get request to /something the laravel you start from top of web.php file looking to a route that follows the pattern. Your both routes will follow that pattern, but the laravel will always, pass the first one to controller.
You have two options:
Put only one route, and inside the controller you switch to the appropriate function. But this isn't a great ideia, because this is the function of the Web.php.
Use the routes like the documentation recommend:
Route::get('/cat/{catId}', 'CategoryController#showCat')->name('showCat');
Route::get('/prod/{productId}', 'ProductController#showProduct')->name('showProduct');
and in Controller you make the appropriate handler of your Category or Product.
You will have to have a way to tell Laravel which url to be mapped to what otherwise it will always use the last defined route. So in your case calling /myVariable and /myVariable it will use the latest definition which is showProduct. The only other way is if you use regular expression to differentiate the variables. For example:
Route::get('/{cat1Url}', 'CategoryController#showCat1')
->name('showCat1')->where('cat1Url', 'cat-*');
Route::get('/{productUrl}', 'ProductController#showProduct')
->name('showProduct')->where('productUrl', 'prod-*');
This way your slugs need to start with what you define, but you cannot use just id as a numeric value for both.
I have those routes defined in my routes/web.php :
Route::get('references/', 'referenceController#index')
Route::get('references/{reference}', 'referenceController#show')
Route::get('references/create', 'referenceController#create')
Like that, the references/create route goes to a 404 page.
If I put this route one line before, everything works fine :
Route::get('references/', 'referenceController#index')
Route::get('references/create', 'referenceController#create')
Route::get('references/{reference}', 'referenceController#show')
Then it is obviously because of the {reference} part in my route, right? But as I wanted to filter the reference perfectly, I've put a pattern in RouteServiceProvider.php. This pattern should check that my reference is a well-formed UUID :
Route::pattern('reference', '[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{10}');
Miles away from the word "create", which doesn't match the pattern.
Do you know why my route is going to a 404 page depending on its position in the file?
This is how Laravel is supposed to work. It isn't very clear in the documentation though I'll admit.
Supplementing Resource Controllers
If you need to add additional
routes to a resource controller beyond the default set of resource
routes, you should define those routes before your call to
Route::resource; otherwise, the routes defined by the resource method
may unintentionally take precedence over your supplemental routes:
Route::get('photos/popular', 'PhotoController#method');
Route::resource('photos', 'PhotoController');
This is also true if you are defining non-resource routes as you noted in your example. This is because it will try to pass "create" as the id of the reference parameter in the route which of course is not valid.
Rule of Thumb
When defining routes that have the same number of url segments, always define the route that does not have a parameter variable first. The routes file will go top-down and find the first route that matches the current request.
I want to keep routes like this
$route["signup"] = "Controller/signup";
$route["signup"] ="Controller2/fbsignup";
Is it possible to to give same route names with different controller functions.
Then how ?
No, you can't.
If you write same route again, it will overwrite first one.
It is just like an array variable.
If you assign any other value to variable, first one will overwrite.
But you can specify HTTP method with route.
No you can't do like this, you are going to make api then define method that will help
$route["signup"]["post"] = "Controller/signup";
$route["signup"]["GET"] ="Controller2/fbsignup";
I want to keep routes like this
$route["signup"] = "Controller/signup";
$route["signup"] ="Controller2/fbsignup";
then try this in routes and url should be like signup/signup and signup/fbsignup
$route["signup/signup"] = "Controller/signup";
$route["signup/fbsignup"] ="Controller2/fbsignup";
call the url like
signup/signup
signup/fbsignup
I have a particular custom route on my viewset, which is basically an action on the detail object with an extra parameter in the url (e.g., r'^{prefix}/{lookup}/sub_items/$'). I want to specify a different authentication_class for this route than the rest of the viewset. Where can I specify that? I see there are #list_route and #detail_route dectorators that can be used to specify that, but what about for custom routes?
Thanks.
I figured it out. The Route should set:
initkwargs={'authentication_classes': (authentication.MyCustomAuthenticationForThisRoute,)}