allow setting the route name

[cataggar]

The route name is currently derived from the handler function name. This allows setting the route name. Here, the route name is set to Hello.

#[get("/", name = "Hello")]
fn hello() -> &'static str {
    "hello"
}

In my use case, I use the Swagger operationId as the route name.

[SergioBenitez]

Why not name the function Hello?

[cataggar]

That was a bad example. Here is a more complete example. I have some routes like:

pub fn routes() -> Vec<rocket::Route> {
    routes![
        operations::list,
        locations::check_trial_availability,
        locations::check_quota_availability,
        private_clouds::list,
        private_clouds::list_in_subscription,
        private_clouds::get,
        private_clouds::create_or_update,
        private_clouds::update,
        private_clouds::delete,
        clusters::list,
        clusters::get,
        clusters::create_or_update,
        clusters::update,
        clusters::delete,
        private_clouds::list_admin_credentials,
        hcx_enterprise_sites::list,
        hcx_enterprise_sites::get,
        hcx_enterprise_sites::create_or_update,
        hcx_enterprise_sites::delete,
        authorizations::list,
        authorizations::get,
        authorizations::create_or_update,
        authorizations::delete
    ]
}

I want the route name for function operations::list to be Operations_List instead of list.

[SergioBenitez]

For what reason? What are you gaining, exactly?

[cataggar]

operationId is what we use to name each route. I'm able to test all method + uri combinations route correctly to an operationId.

[kolbma]

Why you don't use handler and a custom mapping during the test?
Runtime code then doesn't have to handle stuff you need for a test.

[SergioBenitez]

I think this needs more motivation. I recommend opening up a "suggestion" issue with a concrete motivating use-case or two.