Closed frenzzy closed 3 years ago
Just got a chance to play with this and from what I can tell it works great. I'll definitely be testing it more in depth in the coming week but from my initial tests I've found no issues.
Only thing I found was in the code you use "uniqueRouteNameSep" and in your example above you used "uniqueNameSep". Either of these sound good to me.
Is the preferred method of donation through your open collective link? Really appreciate you adding this in for me and in such little time too!
:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (
main@518e360
). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #194 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage ? 100.00%
========================================
Files ? 3
Lines ? 229
Branches ? 66
========================================
Hits ? 229
Misses ? 0
Partials ? 0
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 518e360...57cb5bf. Read the comment docs.
Option
uniqueRouteNameSep
allows using non-unique route names among different branches of nested routes. The router will automatically generate unique names based on parent routes using the specified separator:Closes #193