[go_router_builder] Proposal to improve how we handle extra parameters

[dancamdev]

In the current version of go_router_builder this is the only way to handle extra parameters to the route.

class PersonRouteWithExtra extends GoRouteData {
  PersonRouteWithExtra({this.$extra});
  final int? $extra;

  @override
  Widget build(BuildContext context) => PersonScreen(personId: $extra);
}

This comes with some major developer experience drawbacks in my opinion, among which, the biggest are:

• forced named parameter
• parameter type must be optional because it must be named and cannot be required
• parameter must be named $extra

This leads to having roughly the following line every time you need to use the route (which btw wrongly shows a positional argument in the documentation):

PersonRouteWithExtra($extra: Person(name: 'Marvin', age: 42)).go(context);

Ideally, I would have a positional parameter or be able to have a custom named one.

The purpose of this issue is to discuss potential improvements on the API

[dancamdev]

Specifically tackling the

parameter name must be $extra

We could define a decorator that's responsible for making sure the generator knows which parameter is the extra one, instead of relying on the name.

Ideally, something along this line:

class PersonRouteWithExtra extends GoRouteData {
  PersonRouteWithExtra({this.$extra});
  @Extra() final int? id;

  @override
  Widget build(BuildContext context) => PersonScreen(personId: id);
}

Which would result in a much more clean way of using the route.

PersonRouteWithExtra(id: person.id).go(context);

[darshankawar]

@dancamdev
Can you take a look at this issue and see if your use case is same ?

[dancamdev]

@dancamdev

Can you take a look at this issue and see if your use case is same ?

My proposed solution is exactly the same, yes.

Still, this issue aims to discuss broader fixes to extra - not only the variable name. Passing it as a positional parameter or requiring it if named and non-nullable would be what it really makes it more convenient than go_router.

At the moment I see too many compromises. I tried go_router_builder, I've seen it got in the way of what I was trying to achieve and went back to go_router

[darshankawar]

Thanks for the update. I will keep this issue open and treat it as feature request based on above comment.