Routing Namespaces - this.namespace() for defining routes

[jmurphyau]

Adds this.namespace() to Router DSL along side this.route() and this.resource().

The new namespace function allows you to define a set of routes that exist under the
one namespace which isn't a parent route.

The following 2 examples produce the same results:

this.route('admin.users', { path: 'admin/users' });
this.route('admin.groups', { path: 'admin/groups' });
this.route('admin.environments', { path: 'admin/environments' });

this.namespace('admin', function() {
  this.route('users');
  this.route('groups');
  this.route('environments');
});

The above code examples create the following 3 routes:

1. admin.users at the URL /admin/users
2. admin.groups at the URL /admin/groups
3. admin.environments at the URL /admin/environments

This differs to nested routes in that the following routes are not created/resolved/used:

1. The parent route, admin
2. admin.index
3. admin.error
4. admin.loading

[jayphelps]

Just an FYI--With the big 2.0 push taking all the core team member's time, I imagine that's why there hasn't been a response from them. There are still features promised (routable components, etc) that haven't been delivered, so priorities and all that.

I personally like the general idea--I've used a helper in the past to achieve the same result.

[rwjblue]

Looks like this needs a rebase. I think in general I'm happy to land this behind a feature flag while things settle down for 2.0.0.

[jayphelps]

@jmurphyau What is the intended rule for collisions?

this.namespace('foo', function () {
  this.route('bar');
});
this.route('foo', function () {
  this.route('car');
});

While obviously, one could say "don't do that", IMO that's not a good enough answer; the behavior should be defined and expected, even if that behavior is an exception or warning thrown.

[jmurphyau]

@rwjblue awesome - i'll get onto that.

@jayphelps that an interesting scenario I haven't thought of.. not sure what it will do right now without any additional work but I would expect the this.route to overwrite the this.namespace - what are you thoughts?

I'll take a look into it

[jmurphyau]

@jayphelps the default behaviour is that this.route overwrites this.namespace

I've added tests to explicitly point out this behaviour.

Also calls to this.route and this.namespace with different child routes defined will by default concatenates the child routes.. See test calls to this.route and this.namesapce with the same route should concatenate child routes

[jayphelps]

"namesapce" is misspelled 😄

[jmurphyau]

@jayphelps @rwjblue any different or additional thoughts on this? Going to rebase it shortly - hopefully its good to go after that

[rwjblue]

@jmurphyau - I think this needs to go through the RFC process. In general, I like this, but there are a few additional things that need to be fleshed out (that the RFC process is geared towards). Thank you very much for your work here, and I'm sorry for the crazy long delay here.