I know is a bad name, but i cant change this right now in the system, is huge

Is it a new app? Can you change it to MediaItem? Rails recommends doing that in the docs

Mm

Got it

Can you create am issue please?

Yes of course

With some reporducible scenrsio please

Thank you!

Ok, a will try to reproduce with fish, is the classic for this problem

If it’s the same, then, shouldn’t it be fixed?

We didn’t introduce a fix case for fish

I’ll have a look at the issue

We fix routes, but not search

Is happens to fish model too, i will create the issue right now

Got it

Will try it tomorrow

Thanks for getting in touch with us

Thank you!! https://github.com/avo-hq/avo/issues/600

does a proc passed to

default

when declaring a field have access to the user? i've got a

belongs_to

association, and generally this will be a single record. i'd like to default to that record if the user only has a single possible record

Hey @brief-king-35906. Makes sense. Unfortunately not roght now. We can add support for that next week.

What else do you think you’d like to have access to?

Actually, you might be able to reference ‘Avo::App.context’ in that block

great! i’ll give it a try

probably the resource, the model and the user? should give me enough to work with. for an association like

belongs_to

it’d probably be good to have the scoped collection as well (mine is through a pundit policy for example)

i can get

Avo::App.view_context

for now i've gone with:

ruby
  field :system, as: :belongs_to, required: true, default: -> do
    scope = authorization.apply_policy(System.all)
    if scope.one?
      scope.first.id
    else
      nil
    end
  end

which is fine in my context, but for others the

belongs_to

association could have a scope

another question: do you support authorising actions based on the resource? in my app, a

System

has many

Entry

records. a user should be authorised to interact with an

Entry

if they are an admin (

user.admin?

) or they curate the

System

that the

Entry

belongs to (

user.curated_systems.include?(entry.system)

). an extract of the policy which enforces this:

ruby
class EntryPolicy < ApplicationPolicy
  def show?
    user.admin? || entry_curated_by_user?
  end

  private

  def entry_curated_by_user?
    user.curated_systems.include? record.system
  end
end

my records are always set to the class (

Entry

) and as a result cannot determine anything about the instance. it looks like this will always be the case as [

authorize_action

](https://github.com/avo-hq/avo/blob/6c16f808da4176ba8ef6fd97339704db6506efec/app/controllers/avo/application_controller.rb#L110-L116) is expecting

@model

to be set, but we call

set_model

after

authorize_action

in [

Avo::BaseController

](https://github.com/avo-hq/avo/blob/6c16f808da4176ba8ef6fd97339704db6506efec/app/controllers/avo/base_controller.rb#L8-L9)

for now i've added this concern to all my avo controllers https://github.com/exlibrisrpg/exlibris/blob/2008f764a4ef79526cc4820cb9dd50ad332e7be1/app/controllers/concerns/avo/authorizable.rb

👋 hey hey! recently updated from 1.17 to 1.18.2 and have run into an issue editing resources that have more than one word in the name (e.g.

TeamMembership

). it appears the put request is nesting the form under

"teammembership"

rather than

"team_membership"

as the controller expects, resulting in an

ActionController::ParameterMissing

in the base controller action. seem like this is reproducible in the demo? https://avodemo.herokuapp.com/avo/resources/team_memberships/49/edit happy to report on GH! just wanted to pop in here before I do ✌️