Pass original route option in server.rules() processor

hapijs / hapi

The Simple, Secure Framework Developers Trust

Other

14.63k stars 1.34k forks source link

Support plan

is this issue currently blocking your project? (yes/no): no
is this issue affecting a production system? (yes/no): no

Context

node version: 12
module version: 19
environment (e.g. node, browser, native): node
used with (e.g. hapi application, another framework, standalone, ...): hapi pal
any other relevant information:

What problem are you trying to solve?

Would be nice if server.rules() could pass in original route config so that you can merge existing options with rules options.
Would also be nice if there was an option to merge config and rules vs applyToDefaults

const processor = (rules, { method, path, vhosts, config }) => {

    const options = { tags: config.tags || [] }

    if (rules.audit) {
        options.tags = Hoek.merge(['audit'], options.tags)
    }

    if (rules.api) {
        options.tags = Hoek.merge(['api'], options.tags)
    }
}

Do you have a new or modified API suggestion to solve the problem?

https://github.com/hapijs/hapi/blob/master/lib/route.js#L68

const rulesConfig = internals.rules(rules, { method, path, vhost, config }, server);

I started digging into this. One thing that makes this less straightforward than one might hope is that there are several levels of defaults that can be applied to the route config. That can be seen here:

https://github.com/hapijs/hapi/blob/c2107e9bc9c522c3778e90a3629a0c84f776f9fe/lib/route.js#L81-L83

So if we were to pass the route config into the rule, we'd need to consider which of the intermediate route configs ought to be passed. For example, server route defaults will be applied on top of the user's supplied route config prior to defaults from the rules processor. I believe this is why currently route.options.rules is isolated and passed on its own, to sidestep this awkward issue of working with un-finalized route configurations as various defaults are applied. This would also need to work consistently when a route has multiple rules processors. I am not sure I made this super clear— does that make sense? Any suggestions how it might be addressed?

hapijs / hapi