ansaurus

Question

refactor conditions within haml view

Answer 1

A:

Looks like a good case for a partial to me.

Chuck 2009-09-02 15:30:44

People, comment if you're going to downvote. Otherwise you're not adding to the discussion — you're just being a prick.

Chuck 2009-09-02 17:31:53

actually the code already lays in a partial, thank you

2009-09-03 16:29:13

Partials could definitely help here, but you were pretty vague. A suggestion as to exactly what would go into the partial would help.

James A. Rosen 2009-09-16 18:17:14

Answer 2

+2 A:

#navigation
  %ul.tabbed
    %li{:class => current_page?(new_profile_path) ? "current_page_item" :nil }
      = link_to t("new_profile"), new_profile_path
    %li{:class => current_page?(profiles_path) ? "current_page_item" :nil }
      = link_to t("profiles"), profiles_path
    ...

Lichtamberg 2009-09-02 15:41:00

thank you! Ternary opeator is more concise but I would love to obtain a function for that.

2009-09-03 16:18:47

Answer 3

+4 A:

# helpers
def current_page_class(page)
  return :class => "current_page_item" if current_page?(page)
  return {}
end

-# Haml
#navigation
  %ul.tabbed
    %li{current_page_class(new_profile_path)}
      = link_to t("new_profile"), new_profile_path
    %li{current_page_class(profiles_path)}
      = link_to t("profiles"), profiles_path
    ...

nex3 2009-09-02 16:28:14

Excellent! Thank you! P.S.: I think I can discard the last return in the function, isn't it?

2009-09-03 16:20:05

That's true; I added it for symmetry with the other `return` and to emphasize that the hash was there as a return value.

nex3 2009-09-15 09:56:42

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

refactor conditions within haml view

related questions