Allow non-OAuth controllers to be disabled about doorkeeper

[felipeelias]

Yes, we're very interested on that. A similar approach to devise will help controllers customization, which now is an issue in doorkeeper.

If you have any questions on how to implement this, let me know, I'd be glad to help!

[mattgreen]

Excellent, I'll take a look at this in the near future and we can talk about it more.

[felipeelias]

I started this branch https://github.com/applicake/doorkeeper/compare/customisable-routes

Right now it mounts all routes correctly, but since doorkeeper is an isolated engine, it break all url helpers in views (we need to append main_app. to every helper)

I'm still deciding whether we should remove the isolation or not. I'd love to hear some thoughs

[mattgreen]

The isolation was the reason we use custom controllers to access Doorkeeper functionality. I didn't want to modify the application-wide view templates to use main_app (or whatever it is). If there was a way to remove it, then I didn't find it. :)

I'm definitely in favor of making Doorkeeper a non-isolated engine.

[felipeelias]

Yep, me too.

I removed the engine isolation in the last commit. I had to change the url helpers in the views anyway, mainly because when models were isolated, Rails could identify the correct routes, but without isolation it couldn't.

Most of helpers have doorkeeper prefix right now, but I thought it would make more sense to use oauth prefix instead (for example oauth_authorization_path)

I'm still not very happy with this change in url helpers, this could cause trouble for uses who generated the views.

[felipeelias]

@mattgreen In the latest merge on master you can configure the controllers and aliases for them. I think right now we can improve and allow users to skip controllers and so on.

What do you think?

[piotrj]

@mattgreen I just added the ability to skip controllers in the use_doorkeeper block.
You just use it like

  use_doorkeeper do
    skip_controllers :applications, :authorized_applications
  end 

And it will not add routes for that controller in the app.
We will add this code to the released gem when we release 0.5 version.
Hopefully that fixes your issue. Let me know.

[mattgreen]

Awesome, thanks guys!

[spidie]

The skip functionality was just what I was looking for - can we get this added to the documentation? (I am happy to add this if that's ok).

[tute]

This is more of a Rails feature rather than doorkeeper's, bu I'd merge a PR
that shows this in a sentence or two in the README. Thanks!

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Steve Dalton [email protected] wrote:

The skip functionality was just what I was looking for - can we get this
added to the documentation? (I am happy to add this if that's ok).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#81 (comment)
.