I'm very confused on this situation. I have two routes with on resource name.
Route::resource('product', 'Product\AreaManagerProductController');
Route::resource('product', 'Product\SystemAdminProductController');
I need to make it as one because I have a contextual binding.
$this->app->when(AreaManagerProductController::class)
->needs(ProductInterface::class)
->give(AreaManagerProductRepository::class);
$this->app->when(SystemAdminProductController::class)
->needs(ProductInterface::class)
->give(SystemAdminProductRepository::class);
The contextual binding works fine... but I need to change my route like this.
Route::resource('product_area_manager', 'Product\AreaManagerProductController');
Route::resource('product_system_admin', 'Product\SystemAdminProductController');
I created ProductController and some kind of weird solution.
public function index(){
//Create a conditional statement base on user
return app('App\Http\Controllers\Product\AreaManagerProductController')->index();
}
It may work but it doesn't trigger the middleware... What could be the best practice on this situation. TY
You can have your Route like this
Route::group(['prefix' => 'product', 'namespace' => 'Product', 'middleware' => '<your middleware>'], function() {
Route::resource('area_manager', 'AreaManagerController');
Route::resource('system_admin', 'SystemAdminController');
});
The reason I grouped the route is to reduce redundancy, and the reason i removed Product from the controller name is, as there is a namespace Product already, there is no need of long Class names.
If you wan to access some methods in the AreaManagerController and SystemAdminController just extend the ProductController to these Controllers.
If you want to add some specific middleware for the actions inside these controllers, I have added a middleware clause in the route group which will affect to these controllers, if not needed just remove it.
Hope this helps you.
Related
I have question about syntax which I can not find an answer for.
I have code in routes file:
Route::get(
'/something/{seoString}/{someMore}',
['as' => 'my_name', 'uses' => '\my\namespace\MyController#index', 'my_route_action' => 20]
);
And I would like to rewrite it using the new syntax for calling controller
Route::get(
'/something/{seoString}/{someMore}',
[MyController#::class, 'index'] // would like to use this new syntax
);
And it works fine, but how can I add the custom route action 'my_route_action'?
I know it's possible to wrap the routes with a group and add it this way:
Route::group(['my_route_action' => 20], static function () {
Route::get(
'/something/{seoString}/{someMore}',
[MyController#::class, 'index'] // would like to use this new syntax
);
);
But that's not what I'm looking for. I don't want to be adding one group for each route just to add the route action.
So I wanted to ask if it does exist something like ->addCustomAction() or how is this supposed to be done?
Unfortunately the route action is not a thing, and probably shouldn't be. Unsure what you're actually trying to achieve with that too.
If you're passing in GET data like a bit of data, you can do it through: {variable} so the URL would become the following:
Route::get('my-route-url/{model}/get', [MyController::class, 'methodName')->name('something')->middleware(['something'])
And in your controller, you dependency inject request if you're wanting to use that too, as well as the model:
public function methodName(Request $request, Model $model)
{
dd($request->all(), $model);
}
The "as" is the the name method. Middleware is still middleware.
If you're trying to do a Key/Pair bit of data, you need to use POST request and pass it in the data, which you can access via the $request->input('keyName') method in the controller.
I am working on laravel but i have no idea about using route.
i used route group method but i have a question that can we use a common controller in group route
like
I have bunch of routes
Route::group(['prefix' => 'agent'], function(){
Route::get('pay', 'PaymentController#pay');
Route::get('pay/success', 'PaymentController#success');
Route::get('pay/failure', 'PaymentController#failure');
Route::get('credits', 'PaymentController#credits');
Route::get('checkout', 'PaymentController#checkout');
});
As you can see they all are using same route so is there any way to make this as dry as possible i know those are small route but when it goes long line then it become hard to understand i know it's kind of stupid question
is there any attribute like
Route::group(['prefix' => 'agent', 'controller' => 'PaymentController'], function(){
Route::get('pay', 'pay');
Route::get('pay/success', 'success');
Route::get('pay/failure', 'failure');
Route::get('credits', 'credits');
Route::get('checkout', 'checkout');
});
No there isn't any option to define default controller for a route group. But if you have resource routes then it defines all the sub routes by itself, though it's limited to only CRUD routes. You can do something like this if you're interested.
Route::group(['prefix' => 'agent'], function($controller = 'TestController#') {
Route::get('pay', $controller.'pay');
Route::get('pay/success', $controller.'success');
Route::get('pay/failure', $controller.'failure');
Route::get('credits', $controller.'credits');
Route::get('checkout', $controller.'checkout');
});
heres the situation - I'm building a site thats region based and I need to set it up so that the first segment of the route is a region i.e. of the type:
www.mysite.com/{region}
Currently I have routes set up like this:
www.mysite.com/businesses
www.mysite.com/businesses/show
I've tried a number of tricks but for some reason I can't get this to work:
www.mysite.com/{region}/businesses
in such a way that I need to filter by the {region} variable and that the {region} variable has to prepend every url in the site, also the {region} variable should also be accessible in the controller. I had a look at the localization options except I don't want to change languages here. I'm looking for implementing something of the following:
www.mysite.com/barcelona/businesses
www.mysite.com/new-york/businesses
I already have a table of all regions and slugs and the required relationships. Just trying to get this to work.
Add the region route on top of all other routes, I have similar feature for a project and that fixed it for me.
Route::get('{region?}/businesses', array(
'as' => 'regionBusinesses',
'uses' => 'RegionBusinessesController#getBusinesses'
))->where('region', '.*');
In your Controller
class RegionBusinessesController extends SomeController {
public function getBusinesses($region) {
return View::make('YOUR_VIEW_NAME')->withBusinesses($this->YOUR_MODEL->FETCH_BUSINESSES_METHOD($region));
}
Let's assume we have 2 such routes:
Route::get('{categoryitem}', ['as' => 'category_index', 'uses' => 'CategoryDisplayController#index']);
Route::get('{entryitem}', ['as' => 'entry', 'uses' => 'EntryController#show']);
There are no parameter constraints for parameters and 2 following route model bindings are defined:
Route::bind('categoryitem', function($slug)
{
return Category::whereSlug($slug)->root()->firstOrFail();
});
Route::bind('entryitem', function($slug)
{
return Entry::whereSlug($slug)->firstOrFail();
});
Now let's assume that URL we run is http://project/something. Is it possible to make Laravel look first in route categoryitem for something slug and in case no model is found it will look in the second route for entry with slug something? I haven't found solution for this other than adding some prefix/suffix to route
"Skipping" routes on a condition is not possible at the moment. Although there is a request on github that would allow skipping on a condition if implemented by the framework...
In the meantime you will have to write one route that catches them all. And determine inside of that route (or controller if you wish) if the item exists.
Route::get('{slug}', function($slug){
// check if categoryitem exists
// else check if entryitem exists, etc...
});
Obviously if this becomes a bit two much code move it into a controller
I read the docs on the Laravel website, Stack Overflow, and Google but still don't understand the difference between Route::resource and Route::controller.
One of the answers said Route::resource was for crud. However, with Route::controller we can accomplish the same thing as with Route::resource and we can specify only the needed actions.
They appear to be like siblings:
Route::controller('post','PostController');
Route::resource('post','PostController');
How we can choose what to use? What is good practice?
RESTful Resource controller
A RESTful resource controller sets up some default routes for you and even names them.
Route::resource('users', 'UsersController');
Gives you these named routes:
Verb Path Action Route Name
GET /users index users.index
GET /users/create create users.create
POST /users store users.store
GET /users/{user} show users.show
GET /users/{user}/edit edit users.edit
PUT|PATCH /users/{user} update users.update
DELETE /users/{user} destroy users.destroy
And you would set up your controller something like this (actions = methods)
class UsersController extends BaseController {
public function index() {}
public function show($id) {}
public function store() {}
}
You can also choose what actions are included or excluded like this:
Route::resource('users', 'UsersController', [
'only' => ['index', 'show']
]);
Route::resource('monkeys', 'MonkeysController', [
'except' => ['edit', 'create']
]);
API Resource controller
Laravel 5.5 added another method for dealing with routes for resource controllers. API Resource Controller acts exactly like shown above, but does not register create and edit routes. It is meant to be used for ease of mapping routes used in RESTful APIs - where you typically do not have any kind of data located in create nor edit methods.
Route::apiResource('users', 'UsersController');
RESTful Resource Controller documentation
Implicit controller
An Implicit controller is more flexible. You get routed to your controller methods based on the HTTP request type and name. However, you don't have route names defined for you and it will catch all subfolders for the same route.
Route::controller('users', 'UserController');
Would lead you to set up the controller with a sort of RESTful naming scheme:
class UserController extends BaseController {
public function getIndex()
{
// GET request to index
}
public function getShow($id)
{
// get request to 'users/show/{id}'
}
public function postStore()
{
// POST request to 'users/store'
}
}
Implicit Controller documentation
It is good practice to use what you need, as per your preference. I personally don't like the Implicit controllers, because they can be messy, don't provide names and can be confusing when using php artisan routes. I typically use RESTful Resource controllers in combination with explicit routes.
For route controller method we have to define only one route. In get or post method we have to define the route separately.
And the resources method is used to creates multiple routes to handle a variety of Restful actions.
Here the Laravel documentation about this.
i'm using Laravel 8 in my project
and in my route file web.php
i add this route
Route::controller(SitesController::class)->group(function() {
Route::get('index', 'index')->name('index');
}
in the Route::controller group we pass controller name we will use
inside the group we define the route we'll use as below syntax
Route::method-used('prefix in the URL', 'function used in the specified controller ')->name(); if the name not used in your code just delete it