Angular navigation #38
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cool article! already looking forward to the next one ;)
didn't know some of the router specifics you mention in the article.
There are only a few rephrasings, typo or clarifications needed. I feel like the start of the article could be improved a bit. To me the actual article only starts with the section "the new concept" where you introduce the actual requirements and problems that you faced. The previous sections to me are a bit out of context and might need further clarifications or context.
For the section titles, I would probably use the requirements as section title instead of asking questions in the title. You already did this with the title: Navigate back to hub pages. This could further improve the structure.
Apart from that, all good 👍 Well done!
|
|
||
| # TLDR; | ||
| As with almost everything, using the browser standards is resulting in the best and easiest implementation for our application routing. | ||
| Previously we managed our own navigation page stack in memory, but it got out of sync when the native browser back/forward feature were used. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Previously we managed our own navigation page stack in memory, but it got out of sync when the native browser back/forward feature were used. | |
| Previously we managed our own navigation page stack in memory, but it got out of sync when the native browser back/forward feature was used. |
| # What was our goal | ||
| We have already refactored our navigation concept twice. | ||
| Both times we have mainly used forward navigations. | ||
| Yes also for actions that should have been back navigations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Yes also for actions that should have been back navigations. | |
| Yes, also for actions that should have been back navigations. |
|
|
||
| **Disclaimer: This is a general concept, but the code snippets and some issue we solved were Angular specific.** | ||
|
|
||
| # TLDR; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The intro of this article is a bit confusing IMO. When reading it for the first time, I feel like i missed out on part 1 of a 2 part series. You dive right in with
I would probably add some information on what you are building roughly, what this article is about, what problem you are facing
| Moving to `location.back()` and `location.go(-x)` helped us solve this issue and made the implementation a lot more streamlined. | ||
|
|
||
| # What was our goal | ||
| We have already refactored our navigation concept twice. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand correctly, you tried to implement an on page back navigation feature so that the user can click to go to the previous page instead of using the browser back navigation buttons, right?
If so, then I would probably start this section with explaining what you were actually building. Otherwise, it's hard to follow.
| # What was our goal | ||
| We have already refactored our navigation concept twice. | ||
| Both times we have mainly used forward navigations. | ||
| Yes also for actions that should have been back navigations. |
| But we get stuck at the first `/a`. | ||
| The reason for this is, it is the same URL, and our config says we should ignore those cases. | ||
| Meaning, the guards are not called anymore and only `NavigationSkipped` is dispatched. | ||
| So far I have not found a solution to this problem. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe you can add a shoutout to comment this article if anyone has an idea how to resolve it.
|
@Cybertron01Z what is the state of the article? shall I review it again? |
No description provided.