collections work very strangely about rabl HOT 16 CLOSED

hmm, maybe its worth adding another declaration (instead of object)

collection @users, :users

from rabl.

Yeah there will be settings controlling all of this stuff very soon. I agree it should be configurable.

from rabl.

I would probably create collection @users => :users to match the syntax in other declarations. Does that work? And then add configurations for collection root node "users": { } and object root node on a project level basis. I also probably need a way to tweak those on a per template basis?

from rabl.

sure, that sounds great

from rabl.

Thanks for the suggestion

from rabl.

turns out ExtJS its easy to get it to use the original format as well (using record: 'user' option). so that solved my issue but i'll be happy to test the new collection syntax option once its working

thanks

from rabl.

Thanks, Can you help me design the configuration options dsl. I was thinking to take a lesson from the way tequila did it:

object @user
initial_label true 
# adds { users : [{ user : { first_name : "..."  }, ...] }

and then

item_label false 
# changes it to  [{ first_name : "..." }, ...]

but it doesn't feel all that clean. Do you have any suggestions. Can you think of other options that might need to be configurable?

from rabl.

yeah, initial_label does sound kind of weird. I'd recommend root_name. I do like the idea of having the false value return the value directly

from rabl.

Another option could be simply an options hash on the 'object' or 'collection':

object @user, :initial_label => true, :item_label => false

Not sure if this is better or worse and then I would probably need it for child too?

child :users, :initial_label => true, :item_label => false do
  attributes :first_name
end

from rabl.

ah, good point. object @user => :user seems like the best option. then it'd be the same as for a collection

if its nil, it should use intelligent defaults as it does now (using the model_name) which is very cool

from rabl.

Ah interesting so basically:

root_name false # { user : {...} }
root_name 'users' # { users : { user : {} }

That could work? But how would I mention to remove the inner 'object' name if you wanted:

{ users : [...] }

Once I figure out the cleanest syntax, implementing this will be trivial.

from rabl.

i'll hop on IRC :-)

from rabl.

Ok so basically:

object @user => :user 
# => { user : {...} }

and

collection @users => :users
# => { 'users' : { 'user' : {...} } }

I am still not sure how I would allow the other permutation:

{ 'users' : { "first_name" : "..." }  }

Is this second way where the item has no "user" root node in a collection your preferred output?

from rabl.

I actually have to go. Ill be on IRC later, maybe we can design this then.

from rabl.

cool, i'll think about it and catch up with you soon on IRC. my nick is jacquesc

thanks

from rabl.

Final issue left for this is: #4

Right now you can do:

object @user => :person
collection @users => :people

and it will add a root node "people" BUT there will still be a "person" label inside for every person i.e:

{  "people" : [  { "person" : { age : 22 }  } ] }

That is how I prefer it, but I can see the need for the other way:

 {  "people" : [ { age : 22 } ] }

Currently that way isn't possible.

from rabl.