-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
feature: provide an API to make router ignore an anchor #17745
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
55f4125
feature: provide an API to make router ignore an anchor
mstahv 430f341
Apparently some verificaiton tests insist to have a getter as well...
mstahv 80fb78a
fix test to handle new property with different attribute name
caalador 8796fd0
Merge branch 'main' into feature/router-ignore
caalador File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering if it would be worth to add e.g. a info-level logging in development mode on attach (like done in Label) to inform the user about this behavior when setRouterIgnore(false) and setHref(relative path)?
I feel like most of the "pitfalls" (when they can't be changed easily, cause "senior" users are used to it by now and would unnessary result in breaking changes) can be improved for new user by providing such information in the logs to notify them about the problem and possible better practice?
Edit: Totally out of scope, just thinking out loud: Instead of bloating all components.. the devserver could contain hooks that are always called when components are added to the layout and could implement such checks based on a "ruleset", allowing to improve UX, DX and probably even the whole application overall by providing helpfull tipps like:
Sell it as pro-code 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
More than the added phase (which might be handy as well), would be more/as handy if could intercept the phase when the state is about to be synced with the client. That I have missed a dozen of times. There is this related UI.beforeClientResponse, but that is also component specific (and the method is in weird place and not that well documented in our reference docs).
https://github.com/vaadin/flow/blob/main/flow-server/src/main/java/com/vaadin/flow/component/UI.java#L1283-L1332
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And yeah, something derived of that could be used for some actual logic as well, not just complaining that our users have not figured out that we have bad defaults ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah "beforeClientResponse".. I remember that method, everytime I see it in the flow components it feels like some hack-ish way to workaround limitations 😬