with_assets enforces awkward file structure #36
Description
Let's say I have two concepts: payment and article, both have compex forms which I want to make as cells. Structure is this:
app/concepts/payment/cell/form.rb
app/concepts/payment/view/form.erb
app/concepts/payment/view/form.js
app/concepts/article/cell/form.rb
app/concepts/article/view/form.erb
app/concepts/article/view/form.js
Now guess what - I can't require both form.js files using approach proposed in guides. I would do:
config.cells.with_assets = ["payment/cell/form", "article/cell/form"]
What I am doing next is adding both form.js fies to my application.js, right? So it would look like:
//= require form
//= require form - OOOPS
And, after doing some tests, I see that sprockets would just pick first form.js, ignoring the other. What can I do about it? Well:
Come up with uniq names for asset fies
app/concepts/payment/view/payment_form.js
app/concepts/article/view/article_form.js
//= require payment_form
//= require article_form
This would work fine, except that it looks stupid :-)
Use full path to assets
Idea, at least as it seems to be, is to filestructure without any weird prefixes and just include assets by using full path:
//= require concepts/payment/view/form
//= require concepts/article/view/form
The only this is that due to the way cells-rails adds paths to assets path this won't work.
What I ended up doing is to add this line to application.rb:
config.assets.paths << Rails.root.join("app", "concepts")Now in my application.js I can easily do:
//= require payment/view/form
//= require article/view/form
So, I don't know. My "workaround" works fine, just wanted to discuss this issue. I can make a PR that updates with_assets helper to do something more reasonable. Opinions, thougts?