Ruby on Rails new installation on Ubuntu , problem getting a new app to work (TypeError) ! -

-

just installed ror on ubuntu 10.10 , created new app, welcome page, when create simple index page typeerror. here have done:

following instructions available @ https://help.ubuntu.com/community/rubyonrails

eveything looks fine no error during installation. opted out built in web server keep things simple.

i created new app using:

/var/www/$ rails new mynewapp

and started webserver in terminal:

/var/www/mynewapp/script$ rails server => booting webrick => rails 3.0.3 application starting in development on http://0.0.0.0:3000 => call -d detach => ctrl-c shutdown server [2011-02-22 17:14:09] info  webrick 1.3.1 [2011-02-22 17:14:09] info  ruby 1.8.7 (2010-06-23) [i686-linux] [2011-02-22 17:14:24] info  webrick::httpserver#start: pid=10120 port=3000

i welcome page right. followed tutorial @ (http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html) , created index page:

/var/www/mynewapp$ rails generate controller home index

then edited newlly created mynewapp/views/home/index.html.erb add bit of html. edited mynewapp/config/routes.rb :

blog::application.routes.draw    #...   # can have root of site routed "root"   # remember delete public/index.html.   root :to => "home#index"

now when browse localhost:3000 instead of welcome screen following error on browser:

typeerror

can't convert fixnum string

rails.root: /var/www/mynewapp

and appears in terminal:

started "/" 127.0.0.1 @ wed feb 23 12:23:17 -0500 2011  typeerror (can't convert fixnum string):   rendered /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-3.0.3/lib/action_dispatch/middleware/templates/rescues/_trace.erb (1.1ms) rendered /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-3.0.3/lib/action_dispatch/middleware/templates/rescues/_request_and_response.erb (2.1ms) rendered /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-3.0.3/lib/action_dispatch/middleware/templates/rescues/diagnostics.erb within rescues/layout (6.5ms)

do know doing wrong? thx

seems there triubles database. can run "rake db:migrate --trace" , post result, if still have such problem?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

c# - Is it possible to remove an existing registration from Autofac container builder? -

-
something along lines: builder.registertype<mytype>().as<itype>(); builder.registertype<mytype2>().as<itype>(); builder.deregistertype<mytype>().as<itype>() var container = builder.build(); var types = container.resolve<ienumerable<itype>>(); assert.istrue(types.count == 1); assert.istrue(types[0].gettype == typeof(mytype2)); scenario: go through bunch of assemblies , go register types want make sure have 1 implementation of given type. need before create container. track on own nice if autofac me bit. this cannot done directly using containerbuilder , unless start on new one. mind you, having first built container should able construct new container filtering away unwanted types , reusing registrations first container. this: ... var container = builder.build(); builder = new containerbuilder(); var components = container.componentregistry.registrations .where(cr => cr.activator.limittype != typ...
Read more

php - Mysql PK and FK char(36) vs int(10) -

-
i have read mysql can handle indexes , searches better if tables keys integers rather char(36) uuid's. is worth converting int(10)? note: use 1 server , have have plans use multiple databases concurrently therefore removing 1 of big reasons using uuid. our tables innodb if makes difference. thanks in advance. usually rdbms can handle integer keys pk more efficient, other datatypes. reason how build index column, yes: long dont require string (or other typed) keys, should use integers. however: char(36) , int(10) far away being equal, because int(10) much smaller, char(36). dont know, if require many different keys, should keep in mind. update, complete last paragraph: int(10) 32-bit, char(36) 36 - ^byte^ (= 288-bit). not mean, int consumes less space, means, char(36) has 4 times more different keys.
Read more

c++ - Warning : overflow in implicit constant conversion -

-
in following program, line 5 give overflow warning expected, surprisingly line 4 doesn't give warning in gcc: http://www.ideone.com/u0bxn int main() { int = 256; char c1 = i; //line 4 char c2 = 256; //line 5 return 0; } i thinking both lines should give overflow warning. or there i'm missing? the topic led me experiment this: typedef type checking? there said following(which deleted answer, because when run it, didn't show had expected): //however, you'll warning case: typedef int t1; typedef char t2; t1 x = 256; t2 y = x; //possible overflow warning! (but doesn't give warning :() -wall doesn't include many options. -wconversion 1 of them , warns behavior you're interested in. see http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/warning-options.html
Read more