-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Routing enhancements #5489
Comments
@SteveSandersonMS Thanks for raising this! |
is a routine regex constraint on the road map? |
Regex constraints: definitely maybe :) We're not in a rush to put in all possible constraints because in practice it's rare that you really need them, so they end up just being friction for developers. It's often only server-side API endpoints that need to be strict about that. It's a matter of seeing what scenarios evolve and what kinds of feature requests we're getting from a wide range of people. |
Would it be possible to define all the routes and destinations in a single place like in other JS frameworks? |
@dlr1 I believe the routing engine is pluggable so you can replace with any other system you desire. |
@dlr1 with the ability to nest routes too, perhaps similar to the way angular works with the router-outlet component. |
Also saving states for every route would be nice feature to have ;) |
Please replace 'Multiple nested routers' with 'Unlimited nested routers' else we get the same dilemma they found out later in angular 2 that the router`s nesting skills were limited to sth. like 3 child routers :P |
It would be nice to have some virtual methods that are called at appropriate time to either allow navigation to a page or to dis-allow navigation from a page |
@SteveSandersonMS |
@DNF-SaS I believe your looking for support for catch-all segments, which hasn't been implemented yet. |
Is there anything tracking how routes behave if a user is unauthenticated vs authenticated? In MVC we can use filters on controllers to create secure routes and insecure routes. |
@conficient Not currently. |
I'm building a Bing Maps component and it generates lots of anchor tags with |
@rpedretti for now you don't have a choice but to use JS interop since stopping the click even to propagate isn't possible yet and is tracked here #1073. If I remember you'd need the event that called the click and prevent it propagating via |
Thanki you @RyoukoKonpaku! Worked like a charm! |
Is there any way to manually implement 404 handling at the moment? Is this just a case of changing some logic in the routing system or would it require some more profound changes? It would be very useful for a project that I am working on. |
After combing through some of Blazor's codebase, I think I have a reasonable idea of what needs to be done; would a pull request for something like this be considered, or is it too small? It needs to be made either way for my purposes, but I'd love to submit it to the project if I actually get it working. |
I got this to work. <Router AppAssembly=typeof(Program).Assembly FallbackRoute="/404"/> Basically, if the router detects that a certain route doesn't exist, it will try to render the route described by Also, I specifically made it so that URI displayed by the browser is still what was navigated to originally so that some interop can be done to have behaviour specific to a certain nonexistent URI, such as redirecting if a page moved. I will make a pull request and post the link here. |
Will there be some way of configuring the router in Startup? For instance, I want to be able to add handlers that hook into the router and determine whether a component actually should render, like in the case of authentication. |
Yes, the idea is that you'll be able to subclass |
Any ETA when you'll be able to add sort of router hooks for authentication? |
The ability t attach a user defined object to each route, the same way it can be done in Aurelia would be nice :-) EG:
In Aurelia for example, I often use this approach to add roles to a specific route. I then intercept the before navigation event, and compare the roles on the route, to those loaded from the users session, and use that to decide if pages are accessible or not. There are many other use cases too, such as route language, and dynamic routes. |
@shawty But then, it is possible that the community will come up with alternative routing libraries, that suit different styles, needs and purposes. It is not a given that Microsoft will handle all the cases. It is a modular and extendable framework. I'm thinking about building my own routing system that is service-based and configurable from, for instance, Startup. |
@RobertSundstrom This is true, and I get that :-) I was actually toying with the idea myself. I do however need to dig into the routing system and take a good look before I do anything else, and (cough, cough blazor devs...) some in depth tech docs on the router on "blazor.net" would be usefull :-) There are a million ways this could be done, but having just this small feature would be imensly helpfull even to those that are building custom routing systems I think. |
@SteveSandersonMS Support subfix with catch-all routing. |
Just to add my 2 cent to this.
I use I don't know what method anyone else would do for modal dialogs in Blazor or Angular, but this is how I do them and it works well. So in my <router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="dialog"></router-outlet> And then to open a modal dialog (such as the new dialog in this case): this.router.navigate([{
outlets: { dialog: 'new-dialog' }
}]); In fact I have a class called export class Dialog {
@ViewChild('modal') modalRef: ElementRef
modal: any;
constructor(public router: Router) {
}
initModal() {
this.modal = $(this.modalRef.nativeElement);
this.modal.addClass('is-active');
this.modal.find('.delete').on('click', () => {
this.closeModal();
});
}
closeModal() {
this.modal.removeClass('is-active');
return this.router.navigate([{
outlets: { dialog: null }
}]);
}
} I don't know if this helps or is off topic, but I thought it might help to see how others are working. |
Router should be more flexible in determining what components it looks at. Currently it simply takes a single assembly and searches that and its dependencies. I think it would be nice if the line |
@SteveSandersonMS given the many aspects being touched in this issue I'm going to close it now. Please file separate issues for things which are still valid and important. |
Allowing custom coded constraints would be nice! |
This issue is to track routing features we're likely to want to add in the future:
regex
; maybe removebool
or limit the set ofdatetime
formats more precisely. See Basic route constraints (:int, etc.) blazor#295 for more discussion./products/{*categoryAndName}
)/{*anythingElse}
, because for SSR you'd want to know it's really not a match so you could actually return a 404) - Done!IUriHelper
)<a page=@About>About us</a>
, or perhaps just by codegenning methods like<a href=@Products.Url(53)>Duck boots</a>
for each@page
declaration)@page
directive, allow the use of compile-time constant expressions, not just literal strings (e.g., https://github.com/aspnet/blazor/issues/1363).Also the items from dotnet/blazor#636 that were not yet finalised:
[Route]
attributes on types in referenced assemblies that themselves referenceMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Blazor
transitively[Route]
attributes on component base classes (i.e., inherit=true)Router
component, make it simple to subclass and override a virtual method to change the logic for locating theIComponent
for a given URL. Currently there's no virtual method for this.RouteTable
'sRoutes
propertyget
-onlyThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: