current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

company blog
Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges
tour help
Dismiss
Announcing Stack Overflow Documentation

We started with Q&A. Technical documentation is next, and we need your help.

Whether you're a beginner or an experienced developer, you can contribute.

Sign up and start helping → Learn more about Documentation →
up vote 0 down vote favorite

When developing a web application with angular js, a part of time that developers spend is the time for implementing routing.

When using ui-router in a application, there are two "phases" to consider with regards to routing:

  1. user navigates inside application: when click is made on some button, user is transfered to another state by using $state.go("somestate"). Parameters can be send etc. And url is changed accordingly.

  2. user navigates directly via url.

Lets say application has such route: /mythings/{thingid}/mysubthings/{mysubthingid}

If user navigates to that url directly by pasting it into browser window, application needs to handle it. My question is what's the best practice to do it?

What I'm thinging is: if looking at url example above what needs to be done when user enters that url in browser: get {thingid} from url (from $stateParams), then get {mysubthingid} also from $stateParams (probably by using resolve (ui-router feature) when defining state), then inject what was resolved to controller and then make a query to api and get data about "subthing" and present view in ui with that data. So that should work with both "types of navigations": when user clicks and is transfered to state, or when user enter url directly into browser. Is this the right path to go?

And I suppose that any url you go to when you click something in application, you should be able to take that url and just paste it into browser and see the same results without being redirected to anywhere else. If application cannot handle every url in such way, maybe application' architecture needs to be reconsidered?

Thanks

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

In UI-Router, the main component of the routing is the state. The URL is essentially just an address that points to a specific state of the app. I don't think it's necessarily productive to think of the two ways of navigating as separate; they're just two sides of the same coin. There should be no URL that isn't handled by a state. Any URL that doesn't match a state should be caught by the otherwise definition on the $stateProvider and probably redirect to your home page or a 404 page.

In your example, the thing/:thingId/subthing/:subthingId url should map to a predefined state just like any other state. Let's say that state is main.subthing. The process for loading the data, initiating the controller and rendering the UI should be exactly the same whether you get there by calling $state.go('main.subthing', {thing: 123, subthing: 456}) or ui-sref='main.subthing({thing: 123, subthing: 456})' or you paste myapp.com/thing/123/subthing/456 into the browser. They'll all end up at exactly the same place with exactly the same data by calling the exact same logic (most likely loading thing 123 and subthing 456 in resolves and injecting those into a controller).

You're right that if a url can't be handled by the application, that's a sign that something is wrong. Like I said, bad urls should be handled by defining otherwise when setting up states. But pasting a URL into a browser shouldn't require any extra work if your states are defined correctly. URL handling is baked into UI-Router by default.

share|improve this answer
up vote 0 down vote

I partially agree with you. The point where I disagree is when the URL is obtained by a user who is not supposed to access it. Quite often some websites implement authorization code to check if the user who is currently accessing the page is authorized to do so.

Also I think the route could be a bit different. Something like:

{thingid}/{mysubthingid}

This, I think is a cleaner URL and the parameters could be handled in the same way as the one in your example.

I suggest this in order to make it a bit difficult to unauthorized users.

Anyway, it definitely depends on the kind of application you are implementing. If the app's requirement is to be able to access the page by pasting the URL in the browser then I guess your approach is much better.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.