Error: New route X conflicts with existing Y

[krnlde]

{
        {
            params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
            method: 'PUT'
        },
        {
            params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
            method: 'PATCH'
        }
}

This should work since there are different methods to the same endpoint, but it fails with the following message: Error: New route /api/salesItem/{id}/note/{noteId} conflicts with existing /api/salesItem/{id}/note/{noteId}

[mischah]

Yeah. Right. I loop through the urls array to create server routes. So that can’t work.

But I see the need to have multiple methods for one route but I would prefer the following approach.

Instead of:

urls: [
  {
    params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
    response: '/json-templates/foo.json',
    method: 'PUT'
  },
  {
    params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
    response: '/json-templates/foo.json',
    method: 'PATCH'
  }
]

I would define this route via

urls: [
  {
    params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
    response: '/json-templates/foo.json',
    methods: ['PUT', 'PATCH']
  }
]

Feedback appreciated @krnlde @revrng

Edit:

Could it be a usecase to have:

• one route
• multiple methods
  • different responses for each method?

In that case we would have to use something like:

urls: [
  {
    params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
    response: {
      PUT: '/json-templates/foo.json',
      PATCH: { success: true }
    }
  }
]

or

urls: [
  {
    params: '/{id}/note/{noteId}',
    responses: [
      { method: 'PUT',
        response: '/json-templates/foo.json' },
      { method: 'PATCH',
       response: { success: true } }
    ]
  }
]

[krnlde]

What if I need another response for PUT than for PATCH?

[mischah]

See above ⬆️

[krnlde]

D'accord

[mischah]

The question is which of the two approaches is less ugly

I guess I would prefer the latter one.
The first one might be more readable. But I hate to misuse keys (eg. PUT) as values.

[krnlde]

The latter is the better for me. I think you can also omit the success: true part for convenience. It should be treated the same way (implicit 200 OK)

[mischah]

The { success: true } thingie ist just an example for returning a JavaScript object instead of the content of a JSON file.

This is an already existing feature. See README or tests 😏

[krnlde]

Cooool. I'm new, so sorry for being stupid :)

[mischah]

Haha. My pleasure 😆