Hello,
I have the following:
<% @projects.each do |project| %> <tr> . <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %></td> . </tr> <% end %>
How can I safely comment out the TD line above? Do I have to use the =begin way?
<% @projects.each do |project| %> <tr> . <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %></td> . </tr> <% end %>
How can I safely comment out the TD line above? Do I have to use the =begin way?
If you don't mind HTML comments, just wrap it in <!-- ..... ->
If you just want the link gone, but keep the <td> you can make the start tag look like <%#= and it should work (if memory serves).
Thanks for the reply. I need to avoid HTML comments. Also, I tried
<%= <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you > sure?', :method => :delete %></td> %>
And what happens is every time it runs through the loop it outputs on the page: </td> %>, meaning the " %> from the TD is being used to close the comment, which is why I'm trying to find out a way to comment this line out
Thanks
because the parser see this <%#= <%= link_to ‘Destroy’, project, :confirm => ‘Are you > sure?’, :method => :delete %>
and thinks i ended there so it thinks %> is text
put a <%#= in front of the %>
Thanks for the reply. I need to avoid HTML comments. Also, I tried
<%= <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you > sure?', :method => :delete %></td> %>
And what happens is every time it runs through the loop it outputs on the page: </td> %>, meaning the " %> from the TD is being used to close the comment, which is why I'm trying to find out a way to comment this line out
This is evil, but it will work...
<%%q{ <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you > sure?', :method => :delete %></td> }%>
The %q{...} turns everything within it into an un-evaluated string. And the <% without the <%= results in no output. If you don't even want the blank line change the last %> to -%>
-philip
Thanks all, just a little surprised that Rails doesn't have a simpilar way to comment things out in the view.
nobosh wrote:
Thanks all, just a little surprised that Rails
You mean ERb.
doesn't have a simpilar way to comment things out in the view.
Sure it does: <%# comment %>
You should probably be using Haml instead of ERb, though.
Best,
nobosh wrote:
doesn't have a simpilar way to comment things out in the view.
Sure it does: <%# comment %>
That won't help him comment his <td> though...
You should probably be using Haml instead of ERb, though.
Why? What failure is the OP experiencing that HAML would make succeed? (BTW, I like HAML, but it's this sort of exclamation of yours without any supporting citations that seems to rile people - try rephrasing along the lines of "check out HAML for a more succinct and easier to read way of rendering your views rather than using the bundled Erb"... or something). If there's a method in HAML that would allow him to comment his <td> without a lot of fussing, show that too, since that's the problem he's facing.
Back to the OP:
I use a fairly straightforward way of removing code from execution, in the view, model, controller, and in whatever language I happen to be using - wrap it in a conditional check that doesn't return true:
<% if false %> <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %></td> <% end %>
Similarly, if you *never* want an existing conditional statement to pass, use: <% if false && <your original condition here> %>
and if you *always* want it to pass: <% if true || <your original condition here> %>
...easy to add and easy to remove.
Michael Pavling wrote:
nobosh wrote:
doesn't have a simpilar way to comment things out in the view.
Sure it does: <%# comment %>
That won't help him comment his <td> though...
Of course it will. He can just put the whole <td> construct in an ERb comment tag. ERb doesn't pay attention to HTML nesting. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Or is this an issue of multiline comments in ERb? I font think it is, but if so, then =begin or if false may be necessary.
You should probably be using Haml instead of ERb, though.
Why? What failure is the OP experiencing that HAML would make succeed?
Haml does have a nicer comment syntax, but I suggested it because it's generally more pleasant to work with than ERb, not due to a "failure".
(BTW, I like HAML, but it's this sort of exclamation of yours without any supporting citations that seems to rile people - try rephrasing along the lines of "check out HAML for a more succinct and easier to read way of rendering your views rather than using the bundled Erb"... or something).
I and others have probably said that a hundred times in this list by now. That's why we have archives...
Also, I didn't want to hijack the thread.
If there's a method in HAML that would allow him to comment his <td> without a lot of fussing, show that too, since that's the problem he's facing.
Now that would *really* be hijacking the thread.
Back to the OP:
I use a fairly straightforward way of removing code from execution, in the view, model, controller, and in whatever language I happen to be using - wrap it in a conditional check that doesn't return true:
<% if false %> <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %></td> <% end %>
Yes, that's a very useful trick.
Similarly, if you *never* want an existing conditional statement to pass, use: <% if false && <your original condition here> %>
and if you *always* want it to pass: <% if true || <your original condition here> %>
...easy to add and easy to remove.
Cool!
Best,
The original line was: <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %></td>
so If I changed that to :
<%# <td><%= link_to 'Destroy', project, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %></td> %>
I would be squawked at by the parser, or rather, just get an extraneous "</td> %>" in my HTML, because the comment would be closed by the first "%>"
Which is why I just tend to cut the the chase, and put an "if false" around the lot.
@Michael Pavling
wow thats a good one
Michael Pavling wrote: