The multiple nested views functionality of the ui-router
is very nice - you can easily jump from one state of your app to another.
Sometimes you might want to change the URL, but sometimes not. I feel like the concept of state should be separate/optional from routing.
Here's a plunker that shows what I mean. This is a fork of one of the plunkers in the ui-router
documentation, with 2 minor changes noted below:
.state('route1', {
url: "/route", // <---- URL IS SHARED WITH ROUTE2
views: {
"viewA": {
template: "route1.viewA"
},
"viewB": {
template: "route1.viewB"
}
}
})
.state('route2', {
url: "/route", // <---- URL IS SHARED WITH ROUTE1
views: {
"viewA": {
template: "route2.viewA"
},
"viewB": {
template: "route2.viewB"
}
}
})
This seems to work - the URL stays the same. Again, how much redundant work is done here? Is this an approved/tested usage?
It would be nice if you could omit the url
from a state..
Update question: Is this an approved/tested usage?
You can absolutely have a state without a URL. In fact, none of your states need URLs. That's a core part of the design. Having said that, I wouldn't do what you did above.
If you want two states to have the same URL, create an abstract parent state, assign a URL to it, and make the two states children of it (with no URL for either one).
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With