feat(remix-dev): flat routes

[mcansh]

note: this test is currently failing, but i believe that the "expected" result is actually wrong and should actually be ":$dollabills?/.lol?/what?/$?/*", so i think we have a bug in defineConventionalRoutes where this test originated from.

Closes: #

• Docs
• Tests

Testing Strategy:

tests and yarn playground:new

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 3f3129e

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 17 packages

Name	Type
@remix-run/dev	Patch
create-remix	Patch
remix	Patch
@remix-run/architect	Patch
@remix-run/cloudflare	Patch
@remix-run/cloudflare-pages	Patch
@remix-run/cloudflare-workers	Patch
@remix-run/deno	Patch
@remix-run/eslint-config	Patch
@remix-run/express	Patch
@remix-run/netlify	Patch
@remix-run/node	Patch
@remix-run/react	Patch
@remix-run/serve	Patch
@remix-run/server-runtime	Patch
@remix-run/testing	Patch
@remix-run/vercel	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[kiliman]

Hmm.. the .route suffix is actually in the original spec. Is there a reason this is removed?

[kiliman]

Hmm.. a lot of the code there was to make it easier to keep the enhanced version in sync with the core one. I think the enhancements will be a good proving ground for including in future core. By stripping all that out, I think it's going to be more difficult to extend in the future.

[pcattori]

note: this test is currently failing, but i believe that the "expected" result is actually wrong and should actually be ":$dollabills?/.lol?/what?/$?/*", so i think we have a bug in defineConventionalRoutes where this test originated from.

@mcansh I has the same confusion, but I think its actually correct. But its very unintuitive. I'm thinking that we'll probably want to rethink how some of this stuff works at some point to align with intuitions a bit better.

[pcattori]

We should double-check that parentId wasn't intentionally undefined for some reason. Like does parentId get surfaced in the route meta that is available to users? Do users rely on it being undefined? Or is this value solely used for defining routes internally?

[github-actions]

🤖 Hello there,

We just published version v0.0.0-nightly-45d4491-20230106 which includes this pull request. If you'd like to take it for a test run please try it out and let us know what you think!

Thanks!

[manzano78]

Hey! I tried the nightly release which includes this PR and I think I found an issue, based on the following file structure:

routes/
  app/
      _index.tsx
      primary-nav.tsx
      footer.tsx

• footer.tsx exports a default component.

What looks wrong to me is that I can see this footer directly on screen by hitting /app/footer in the URL bar.
But if I understand the principles, only _index.tsx should be treated as a route module, right?

Before you ask, I did activate the future flag :)

[kiliman]

@manzano78 You should probably create a new issue instead of commenting on a closed PR.

Anyway, yes. If you are using flat-folders convention (where routes are folder names instead of filenames), then _index.tsx should be treated as the route and everything else as colocated files.

Can you run npx remix routes and paste the result? Please do so in another issue and reference this comment.

Thanks!