Separate query params from route params #37
Conversation
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 is a breaking change. Four arguments are returned to the route handler instead of three. All query parameters are passed in the new second argument, instead of being merged with the route parameters in the first argument. The other two arguments are unchanged. Tests and documentation are updated and version is set to 3.0.0, as this changes the API. Minified size is reduced to 689.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As you know and documented, there was a potential collision between route and query parameters because they are both returned in the first argument to the route handler. For my own purposes I wanted to avoid this, so I separated the query parameters into a new second argument to the route handler, which now has four arguments. It reduces minified size to 689. But it is a breaking change.
As it is a breaking change, I anticipate that you may not want to merge this, which is fine. But I really appreciate your module so wanted to return this to you. In any case, thank you very much for rlite. I only just discovered it today, but it is (with this change) just what I need and more suitable than a dozen or so others I investigated: a little experiment that has gone very well indeed!!