You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
fix(react): improve handling of routes nested under path="/" (#14821)
We noticed this in Sentry's `/issues/:groupId/` route, which uses SDK
v8.43.0. The full route tree is complex, but the relevant parts are:
```js
<Route path="/" element={<div>root</div>}>
<Route path="/issues/:groupId/" element={<div>issues group</div>}>
<Route index element={<div>index</div>} />
</Route>
</Route>
```
If you navigate to e.g. `/issues/123` (no trailing slash), the recorded
transaction name is `//issues/:groupId/` (notice the double slash). This
looks messy but doesn't have too much of a consequence.
The worse issue is when you navigate to e.g. `/issues/123/` (with
trailing slash), the transaction name is `/issues/123/` - it is not
parameterized. This breaks transaction grouping. On the `master` and
`develop` branch of the SDK, the transaction name is recorded as `/`.
This causes the transactions to be grouped incorrectly with the root, as
well as any other routes nested under a route with `path="/"`.
(Thanks @JoshFerge for noticing the bad data in Sentry! 🙌)
---
Note that this commit effectively reverts a change from #14304 where
```js
if (basename + branch.pathname === location.pathname) {
```
became
```js
if (location.pathname.endsWith(basename + branch.pathname)) {
```
This is the change that caused the difference in results between SDK
versions. This will always match when `basename` is empty,
`branch.pathname` is `/`, and `location.pathname` ends with `/` - in
other words, if you have a parent route with `path="/"`, every request
ending in a slash will match it instead of the more specific child
route. (Depending on how often this kind of `Route` nesting happens in
the wild, this could be a wide regression in transaction names.) But, no
tests failed from the removal of `endsWith`. @onurtemizkan, who wrote
the change in question:
> I'd expect this to break descendant routes. But in the final
> implementation, descendant routes don't end up here. So, I
> believe it's safe to revert.
0 commit comments