Subgroups with middlewares are overriding parent groups middlewares

[es-lab]

Hi @joeybloggs ,

I'm doing some testing with this router, and I found an issue.
Here is an example:

a := server.Group("/a", aM)
a.Get("/test", func(ctx *internal.Ctx) {
	ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, "a-ok")
})

b := a.Group("/b", bM)
b.Get("/test", func(ctx *internal.Ctx) {
	ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, "b-ok")
})

c := b.Group("/c", cM)
c.Get("/test", func(ctx *internal.Ctx) {
	ctx.JSON(http.StatusOK, "c-ok")
})

func aM(ctx *internal.Ctx) {
	ctx.Next()
}

func bM(ctx *internal.Ctx) {
	ctx.Next()
}

func cM(ctx *internal.Ctx) {
	ctx.Next()
}

And this is the behavior:

1. /a/test executes the aM. Everthing OK.
2. /a/b/test executes only bM, it does not execute aM. But it should.
3. /a/b/c/test executes only cM, it does not execute aM and bM. But it should execute them all.

If this is a bug, I hope it will be fixed ASAP. From a lot of routers out there this one seems pretty good to me, and this issue is blocking me to migrate to it.

[deankarn]

Thanks @es-lab I'll check it out ASAP this afternoon.

Can you confirm you have pulled the latest changes, this sounds like the issue that was solved in the last pull request, just to confirm #16

P.S. if you like this router you may want to also check out this routers pure implementation https://github.com/go-playground/pure I found I was passing the custom context object everywhere which got messy after a while.

[es-lab]

@joeybloggs Yes I'm using the last version as you indicated.

I saw the other router too, but I already have started a project that uses the Context. Now my project uses the routing system from the kataras/iris framework. As you my already know there will be no more support for it, and I'd like to migrate to another router.

From the list of routers on awesome-go.com this one is pretty good and will require less changes to migrate.

[deankarn]

Cool I'll look into it when I'm back at a computer.. I'm out and about right now.

[deankarn]

Hey @es-lab I've corrected the issue and taken the liberty of splitting up the group function into:

• Group
• GroupWithMore
• GroupWithNone

which I've been meaning to do for a while for clarity and ease of use.

Please let me know if you discovery anything else.

[es-lab]

Hey @joeybloggs I've tested with the last changes, and it works perfectly. Thanks for the support!

P.S.: Splitting the group function was a really good idea!