Fix minor mistake in HeadersRegexp doc

[Algebra8]

Fixes #666

Summary of Changes

1. Fixed mistake in HeadersRegexp docs.

PS: Make sure your PR includes/updates tests! If you need help with this part, just ask!

Since this is a doc change I don't think it needs tests.

[ya5u]

@Algebra8 LGTM!
BTW, func (*Route) Host and some of the methods have the same mistake, so why not fix them together?

[andrew-werdna]

Since Router and Route both share some method names in common (where the Router just calls r.NewRoute().<Method>(...) I think that many of the examples are actually syntactically correct. However, the intent may have been to demonstrate something a Route can do specifically. I have updated all the instances where this occurred and have opened a PR for this here

[Algebra8]

Sorry for the delay, I got busy with some other things and lost track of this issue 😞

@andrew-werdna thanks for bringing that point up, and it's a great point, but in my opinion the documentation should reflect the outer most visibility to the user and it's not great ux for the user to have to dig into the source code to come to the same realization you did.

And thanks for the PR!

[andrew-werdna]

I think I know what you mean. I had to read the source code just now to discover that both Router and Route types shared multiple method names.

[james-d-elliott]

LGTM

[amustaque97]

@elithrar we can merge this PR. Let me know WDYT?

[amustaque97]

@andrew-werdna thanks for bringing that point up, and it's a great point, but in my opinion, the documentation should reflect the outermost visibility to the user and it's not great UX for the user to have to dig into the source code to come to the same realization you did.

Hi @Algebra8, I had a closer look at the code I believe we shouldn't update the docs but rather add a new method HeadersRegexp in the mux.go file like it is done for other multiple methods.

UPDATE: I'm okay with the current changes. Because going forward if someone gets maintainership then the maintainer may remove duality as mentioned in the v2 proposal here: #387 (comment)

I'm not saying the v2 proposal is finalised but there are higher chances of getting it fixed/released.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #667 (c37390b) into main (395ad81) will increase coverage by 0.43%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head c37390b differs from pull request most recent head 5e94bf4. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5e94bf4 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #667      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.01%   78.44%   +0.43%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         887      877      -10     
==========================================
- Hits          692      688       -4     
+ Misses        140      135       -5     
+ Partials       55       54       -1     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
route.go	69.29% <ø> (+0.83%)	⬆️

[coreydaley]

@apoorvajagtap ptal

[apoorvajagtap]

@coreydaley I think we can close this one, as #672 incorporates HeadersRegexp. Let me know in case I missed anything.

[james-d-elliott]

I agree with that assessment. You could probably merge main into this to be absolutely sure.

[coreydaley]

Has already been fixed in #672