_route vs route breaks layout

[akomm]

As soon as you use the _route semantic, you break out of flat-routes. Forcing to only be able to use _layout implicitly forces be to nest more and more folders that I would like to have flat. I thought hybrid method is possible here. Did I miss something?

[akomm]

Examaple:
_user/_route.tsx <- not layout anymore after adding _
_user.stuff/_route.tsx

This forces me to nest all _user.stuff into _user in order to add _user/_layout.tsx. It also forces me to move all the _user/_route.tsx co-located assets into the _user folder.

Its bad also bad because typically you see folders first, files last.

[kiliman]

Hmm.. interesting. With remix-flat-routes and the flat-folders convention (colocation), these are all synonmous: any file named index, route, layout, page or any file starting with _.

So _user/_route should be treated as a parent layout for _user.stuff/_route. If not, then that is a bug.

Remember, _layout only has a special meaning with hybrid routes in flat-files convention. Typically, you'd have _user.tsx and _user.stuff.tsx. If you want to user hybrid routes it would be _user+/_layout.tsx and _user+/stuff.tsx. Essentially, _user+/_layout.tsx is equivalent to _user.tsx

Thanks again for these examples. It would help greatly if you could include your folder structure: tree app/routes and route config: npx remix routes.

[akomm]

I think I have a clue now with npx remix routes (nice to know, thanks!)

I think its a mistake on my side, because I split my action & loader into server.ts file and I've prefixed server.ts _server.ts to be always at the top with the route, but that makes server.ts the parent route:

And its when it struck me, that as per documentation you can name routes _whateveryouwant.ts

[kiliman]

I see... you can always use _route.tsx for your route module, and _route.server.tsx as the server stuff.

// routes/_user/_route.tsx
import { action, loader } from './_route.server';
export { action, loader };

[akomm]

oh, I've confused the _route.server.tsx in my first reply with the route ID semantic. Yes that is a good idea.