added support for routes with fragments #163
Merged
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
|
thank you. This patch needs some extra work but I can use it for the next route major release |
|
Glad that I could contribute. Though I am now out of the field, I am still fan of Riot.JS, hope it lives on and grows! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Considering anchors pointing to a path with fragment such as:
<a href="/page#fragment">fragment</a>.Currently such anchors are ignored by the router and fall back to the default event processing.
This might be ok when already on
/page, but when coming from another pathname it results in a full reload of the application.This pull request lets the router handle clicks on such anchors. It also includes a small step to ensure that the browser will actually scroll to the designated fragment.
I added a new test to verify the behavior (the test does fail without this patch). Looking at the code I could spot no negative side-effect, but I do not claim to understand fully the router code.