#119 config.include and config.exclude does not work correctly with rails engine.

[v1nayv]

Fixes #119

[le0pard]

Thanks. Need review by @bogdan. But I prefere "_" between engine name and routes :)

[v1nayv]

Sure i can change it. Let see what @bogdan has to say for this.

[bogdan]

I don't think it is right to concatenate routes without _. I've read the discussion at #119 and didn't figure out why did you came to this idea. . is not valid function name indeed. But it don't have to be function name.

Maybe the rightest thing to be done is generate routes for Raiils sub-appliations in JS sub-object:

Routes.engine.root_path
// instead of 
Routes.engine_root_path

Anyway behaviour change of engine route generation is a terrible backward compatibility problem so we need to allow people to have old behaviour.

So in short term I would consider adding underscore here:
https://github.com/railsware/js-routes/blob/master/lib/js_routes.rb#L149

In long term:

1. add an option how to generate routes for engines:
   • concatenated with '_' (default)
   • nested object
2. Add a warning that people should specify one and default will be changed in future version ( only if they use engines)
3. Change the deafult option to the nested object

[v1nayv]

Sounds good @bogdan . Do you want to do the long term solution on a separate issue or do you want to do it on this one ?

[bogdan]

I prefer to go one by one. Rough solution first as we need to support it for pretty long time (maybe even forever).

[bogdan]

It is already here: https://github.com/railsware/js-routes#very-advanced-setup

You can submit a PR if you think it is not clear enough.

[v1nayv]

@bogdan i updated the pull request. Please review

[bogdan]

Good job thanks.