Declaring the same route twice

[guest20]

(skip to TL;DR if ... you know)

% mojo version
CORE
  Perl        (v5.20.2, freebsd)
  Mojolicious (9.39, Waffle)
...
This version is up to date, have fun!

I've manually removed date stamps from logs, trimmed outputs in some places and run everything under carton v1.0.21 but falsified it to look like everything is installed globally.

Long winding path, that eventually gets to the point

In direct defiance of Mojolicious::Guides::Growing I like to split a growing ::Lite app up into several MyApp::Lite::SpecificThing packages full of further ::Lite apps and then duct tape them back together with Mojolicious::Plugin::Mojolyst.

Today I managed to mis-edit one of my ::SpecificThing's and ended up with a get "/" => sub ... in two places, which Mojolyst cheerfully merged into MyApp's routes. myapp routes showed me both get /s in the list - one of them was bogus, and lead to can't render a response which I've since fixed, but while trying to get my head around it I wrote a repro case that I thought should explode:

badapp:

use Mojolicious::Lite;
get '/' => { text => 'Hello (again)' ;
get '/' => { text => 'Sweeting is such part sorrow' };
app->start;  

but it didn't explode, Mojo seems totally Ok with just ... having two routes with the same verb+path:

% perl badapp routes
/  GET
/  GET

Not a care in the world about it, not even a warning:

% perl badapp get /
[trace] [NVJrkyg5Y3Lq] GET "/"
[trace] [NVJrkyg5Y3Lq] 200 OK (0.001196s, 836.120/s)
Hello (again)

TL;DR

... as we can see Mojolicious::Router allows you to have two routes with the same verb/path

If it's Ok for there to be two get /s, should Mojolicious::Command::routes show the file/package/line where each was declared (which involves some caller tracking ::Routes)

me@hypothetical-future % perl badapp routes
/  GET    coderef badapp line 2
/  GET    coderef badapp line 3

If it's not Ok, should ::Routes produce a (possibly %ENV-guarded) error/warning about it?

me@hypothetical-future % env MOJO_ROUTER_FATAL_DUPLICATES=1 perl badapp routes
[error] [UuseeOWo6wjl] Route GET / declared twice, first time badapp line 2 at badapp line 3

[kraih]

No, the router uses regular expressions internally so it is impossible to protect from conflicting routes. Trying to make warnings for some cases would be pointless, since there is way too many. It is something users just need to be aware of.

[guest20]

Regexes, right. Yep...