fix errors/schedules when GET without any errors/schedules available #23

wants to merge 1 commit into


None yet

2 participants


When in the follwing screen:

there are 4 GET requests available: expressions, workitems, errors, schedules.

In case there are no errors or no schedules, clicking those links results in an Internal Sever Error.
This is caused by @limit = @count which in case of no results creates @limit = 0.

This in turn causes view/_pagination.html.haml to get a division by 0 situation on the line:
- las = ((@count / lim.to_f).ceil - 1) * lim

Proposed solution sets @skip to nil in case @count = 0 which then skips the pagination section of _pagination.html.haml and will only print 0 errors/schedules.


Hello Gert,

many thanks for your contribution.

I can't seem to reproduce the issue here.

Launching a new process (no errors, no schedules) then hitting its /_ruote/processes/xxx/errors and /schedules. No "server error" in sight.

I then tried with a fresh checkout of this repo and well, same routine, no "server error" in sight.

Wasn't this fixed in 6829cd5 ?

The repo's pagination is not using

las = ((@count / lim.to_f).ceil - 1) * lim


las = lim < 1 ? @count : ((@count / lim.to_f).ceil - 1) * lim

It seems your pull request is started against an older version of ruote-kit.



Doh, I had actually checked the repo and must have looked over the change already in place.
I didn't realize that the gem is actually from March 2011 so the past 1,5 years worth of updates to this repo are not on rubygems. :(

Sorry for wasting your time!

@thunder- thunder- closed this Oct 25, 2012

No waste at all. Please tell me if you need a newer gem pushed to Rubygems. I thought everybody was using it via bundler :git... Sorry.


For me personally I can just change to the git way to get the latest. Perhaps it is good for the project's visibility to have a newer version available on rubygems. For a relatively new person to start digging into the life of ruby, just going by the gem "ruote-kit" seems to be step 1. And if you are then missing 1,5 years of improvements that's too bad :)


+1 to your comment
+1 to my TODO list :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment