Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 25, 2021. It is now read-only.

Router Tree is stripped to root only, loadChildren does not update #628

Closed
Delagen opened this issue Sep 9, 2016 · 10 comments
Closed

Router Tree is stripped to root only, loadChildren does not update #628

Delagen opened this issue Sep 9, 2016 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@Delagen
Copy link

Delagen commented Sep 9, 2016

I have dynamic parts of routing, but route tree is stripped and contains no-name-route only
untitled

@sumitarora
Copy link
Member

@Delagen Is there an example we can look at or can you create one?

@sumitarora sumitarora added the bug label Sep 9, 2016
@Delagen
Copy link
Author

Delagen commented Sep 9, 2016

Sad but project is private, and I don't know how implement it in plunker. I think any example with loadChilder angular router feature should be suitable

@xorgy
Copy link
Contributor

xorgy commented Sep 12, 2016

@Delagen We have a test case where we see this issue, and are looking into it.

Thanks for the report.

@Delagen
Copy link
Author

Delagen commented Sep 13, 2016

@xorgy Thanks to you. You are doing our work easier.

@stevenkampen
Copy link
Contributor

@Delagen What would you like/expect to happen here? Is it just that you want to see the module name that will be loaded (easy)? or are you expecting that we specifically preload the complete route tree (including these lazy loaded modules)?

@xorgy Any thoughts?

@Delagen
Copy link
Author

Delagen commented Oct 11, 2016

@stevenkampen Can you update RouterTree to actual state and display it on loadChildren event?

@stevenkampen
Copy link
Contributor

@Delagen So you're saying show full details of lazy loaded routes that have been loaded, and just the stub info (module name) when they are not yet loaded? That seems like a good compromise to me. @xorgy @igor-ka, Any thoughts?

@Delagen
Copy link
Author

Delagen commented Oct 12, 2016

@stevenkampen Yes. I think we must display actual state of tree. Loading full tree at start will be bad idea, cause it will make some actions which developer doesn't wait to happen.

@stevenkampen
Copy link
Contributor

@Delagen No worries. I'm working on this solution now.

@stevenkampen
Copy link
Contributor

This was resolved by #738

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants