Expose the matched route as an extension on the request #899
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
I think this is good, but it could just be a method on |
If the router found a matching route we store it as an extension struct on the request and then expose it to the user as a method on `Request`. Signed-off-by: Johannes Löthberg <[email protected]>
kyrias
force-pushed
the
expose-matched-route-as-ext
branch
from
f7758ff
to
6ed507b
Compare
|
Reasonable. I've made the struct internal to the crate and added a method to get the extension now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I considered adding it directly to the
Requeststruct, though now I'm not sure anymore why I didn't, haha. I guess this PR is more of an RFC though. I would be happy with either implementation, but I do have a need for getting the route.Edit: I remembered now why I chose not to add it to the
Requeststruct which is that it feels cleaner to have theRequeststruct only deal with the actual client-submitted request, and the concept of a matched route is purely a server-side abstraction.But since the
Requestalready contains the list of captured route parameters I guess this point is a bit moot. Though I guess if this separation was wanted it wouldn't be unreasonable to remove theroute_paramsstruct member and turn that into an extension struct as well.