refs #9192, refs #9178
After trying to progress with current implementation, it became clear that the route service can't control the boot sequence, because then we end up with circular dependencies between the route service and the channel service.
The route service now exposes:
- a siteRouter
- a way for apps to register routes.
- ParentRouter base class for other modules to use
- the registry
...
- moved the default route setup back to site/routes.js 🙈
- moved the parent channel router back to the channel service (this makes way more sense imo)
- this structure prevents circular dependencies
- split the registry out into it's own thing
- fixed-up various bits of tests and comments
- DEBUG will print a list of routes 🎉
refs #9192
- Moving towards a centralised concept of routing / routes
- The base router now wraps express router, and offers us the features we need
- Site Router is the parent router, it gets initialised with all of our default routing
- App Router is a sub router for apps - apps register their routes/routers onto it.
- TODO: refactor channels subrouter to work this same way
- MAYBE: move the app router to the apps service
refs #9192
- Instead of `setupRoutes` function in apps that gets passed a router, there is now a registerRouter function as part of the proxy
- Moved towards a route service, which will know about all routes
- Using classes to abstract away shared behaviour
Notes:
- changing the app proxy didn't result in a test failure!
- structure of route service is totally new and may change a lot yet
