Angular auxiliary routes with named router-outlets: ERROR Error: Uncaught (in promise): Error: Cannot match...
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am having a hard time getting auxiliary routes to work, even in a minimalistic scenario.
I'm pretty sure, I stuck to the angular documentation on routes and multiple outlets down to a T, so I really have no idea what I am missing.
app.routing.ts:
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
app.component.html:
<h2>I am the app component</h2>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
Before using routerLink
, I wanted to get it to work by entering a URL right into the browser. Is it possible, that I missed something crucial regarding navigating to aux routes by direct URL?
Here's what happens when directly hacking in URLS:
http://localhost:4200/
works;app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/somethingfallback123
works; due to the fallback-route,app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple)
does not work
neither doeshttp://localhost:4200(simpleOutlet:simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:/simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple/)
etc.. (you can see, I am desperate)
Stackblitz link
ERROR LOGS:
Mozilla Firefox:
ERROR Error: "[object Object]"
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7882:31
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7839:17
scheduleResolveOrReject http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7941:17
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7489:17
onInvokeTask http://localhost:4200/vendor.js:70021:24
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7488:17
runTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7256:28
drainMicroTaskQueue http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7663:25
It seems to be a know issue that Firefox does not throw correct error messages.
Google Chrome:
ERROR Error: Uncaught (in promise): Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Environment (angular version: ng v)
Angular CLI: 7.0.4
Node: 9.7.1
OS: linux x64
Angular: 7.0.2
angular routing angular7 router-outlet
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am having a hard time getting auxiliary routes to work, even in a minimalistic scenario.
I'm pretty sure, I stuck to the angular documentation on routes and multiple outlets down to a T, so I really have no idea what I am missing.
app.routing.ts:
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
app.component.html:
<h2>I am the app component</h2>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
Before using routerLink
, I wanted to get it to work by entering a URL right into the browser. Is it possible, that I missed something crucial regarding navigating to aux routes by direct URL?
Here's what happens when directly hacking in URLS:
http://localhost:4200/
works;app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/somethingfallback123
works; due to the fallback-route,app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple)
does not work
neither doeshttp://localhost:4200(simpleOutlet:simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:/simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple/)
etc.. (you can see, I am desperate)
Stackblitz link
ERROR LOGS:
Mozilla Firefox:
ERROR Error: "[object Object]"
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7882:31
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7839:17
scheduleResolveOrReject http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7941:17
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7489:17
onInvokeTask http://localhost:4200/vendor.js:70021:24
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7488:17
runTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7256:28
drainMicroTaskQueue http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7663:25
It seems to be a know issue that Firefox does not throw correct error messages.
Google Chrome:
ERROR Error: Uncaught (in promise): Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Environment (angular version: ng v)
Angular CLI: 7.0.4
Node: 9.7.1
OS: linux x64
Angular: 7.0.2
angular routing angular7 router-outlet
it will be easy to help you if you put your relevant code here:stackblitz.com/edit/angular-6s9716 (fork and post the link)
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 9:11
thank you for your response! I updated the original post.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 9:43
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am having a hard time getting auxiliary routes to work, even in a minimalistic scenario.
I'm pretty sure, I stuck to the angular documentation on routes and multiple outlets down to a T, so I really have no idea what I am missing.
app.routing.ts:
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
app.component.html:
<h2>I am the app component</h2>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
Before using routerLink
, I wanted to get it to work by entering a URL right into the browser. Is it possible, that I missed something crucial regarding navigating to aux routes by direct URL?
Here's what happens when directly hacking in URLS:
http://localhost:4200/
works;app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/somethingfallback123
works; due to the fallback-route,app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple)
does not work
neither doeshttp://localhost:4200(simpleOutlet:simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:/simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple/)
etc.. (you can see, I am desperate)
Stackblitz link
ERROR LOGS:
Mozilla Firefox:
ERROR Error: "[object Object]"
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7882:31
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7839:17
scheduleResolveOrReject http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7941:17
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7489:17
onInvokeTask http://localhost:4200/vendor.js:70021:24
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7488:17
runTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7256:28
drainMicroTaskQueue http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7663:25
It seems to be a know issue that Firefox does not throw correct error messages.
Google Chrome:
ERROR Error: Uncaught (in promise): Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Environment (angular version: ng v)
Angular CLI: 7.0.4
Node: 9.7.1
OS: linux x64
Angular: 7.0.2
angular routing angular7 router-outlet
I am having a hard time getting auxiliary routes to work, even in a minimalistic scenario.
I'm pretty sure, I stuck to the angular documentation on routes and multiple outlets down to a T, so I really have no idea what I am missing.
app.routing.ts:
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
app.component.html:
<h2>I am the app component</h2>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
Before using routerLink
, I wanted to get it to work by entering a URL right into the browser. Is it possible, that I missed something crucial regarding navigating to aux routes by direct URL?
Here's what happens when directly hacking in URLS:
http://localhost:4200/
works;app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/somethingfallback123
works; due to the fallback-route,app.component.html
is displayed
http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple)
does not work
neither doeshttp://localhost:4200(simpleOutlet:simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:/simple)
,http://localhost:4200/(simpleOutlet:simple/)
etc.. (you can see, I am desperate)
Stackblitz link
ERROR LOGS:
Mozilla Firefox:
ERROR Error: "[object Object]"
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7882:31
resolvePromise http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7839:17
scheduleResolveOrReject http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7941:17
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7489:17
onInvokeTask http://localhost:4200/vendor.js:70021:24
invokeTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7488:17
runTask http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7256:28
drainMicroTaskQueue http://localhost:4200/polyfills.js:7663:25
It seems to be a know issue that Firefox does not throw correct error messages.
Google Chrome:
ERROR Error: Uncaught (in promise): Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Error: Cannot match any routes. URL Segment: 'simple'
Environment (angular version: ng v)
Angular CLI: 7.0.4
Node: 9.7.1
OS: linux x64
Angular: 7.0.2
angular routing angular7 router-outlet
angular routing angular7 router-outlet
edited Dec 8 at 3:30
BSMP
2,53952334
2,53952334
asked Nov 12 at 8:45
RichardM90ger
32
32
it will be easy to help you if you put your relevant code here:stackblitz.com/edit/angular-6s9716 (fork and post the link)
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 9:11
thank you for your response! I updated the original post.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 9:43
add a comment |
it will be easy to help you if you put your relevant code here:stackblitz.com/edit/angular-6s9716 (fork and post the link)
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 9:11
thank you for your response! I updated the original post.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 9:43
it will be easy to help you if you put your relevant code here:stackblitz.com/edit/angular-6s9716 (fork and post the link)
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 9:11
it will be easy to help you if you put your relevant code here:stackblitz.com/edit/angular-6s9716 (fork and post the link)
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 9:11
thank you for your response! I updated the original post.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 9:43
thank you for your response! I updated the original post.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 9:43
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
here the code to solve this issue StackBlitz
in app.routing.ts
instead
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
do
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: 'main',
component: AppComponent,
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
}
]
}
];
and instead
exports: [RouterModule, appRoutes]
do
exports: [RouterModule]
in app.component.html
instead
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
do
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
in app.module.ts
remove import { Routes, RouterModule } from '@angular/router';
you not need it here you already made a separated Routing file
add
import { AppRoutingModule } from './app.routing';
import { SimpleComponent } from './simple/simple.component';
instead
@NgModule({
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot()
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do
@NgModule({
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent, SimpleComponent ],
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
AppRoutingModule
],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do that as following declarations
then imports
the order is important as long you made a separated routing file
for more details and reference take a look on the link mentioned above.
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Change RouterModule
to RouterModule.forRoot()
in app.module file:
@NgModule({
imports: [ BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot() //this line
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in theforRoot()
call as you wrote? For exampleforRoot([appRoutes])
(withappRoutes
being imported fromapp.routing.ts
?
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
remove theforRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53258519%2fangular-auxiliary-routes-with-named-router-outlets-error-error-uncaught-in-pr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
here the code to solve this issue StackBlitz
in app.routing.ts
instead
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
do
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: 'main',
component: AppComponent,
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
}
]
}
];
and instead
exports: [RouterModule, appRoutes]
do
exports: [RouterModule]
in app.component.html
instead
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
do
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
in app.module.ts
remove import { Routes, RouterModule } from '@angular/router';
you not need it here you already made a separated Routing file
add
import { AppRoutingModule } from './app.routing';
import { SimpleComponent } from './simple/simple.component';
instead
@NgModule({
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot()
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do
@NgModule({
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent, SimpleComponent ],
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
AppRoutingModule
],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do that as following declarations
then imports
the order is important as long you made a separated routing file
for more details and reference take a look on the link mentioned above.
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
here the code to solve this issue StackBlitz
in app.routing.ts
instead
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
do
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: 'main',
component: AppComponent,
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
}
]
}
];
and instead
exports: [RouterModule, appRoutes]
do
exports: [RouterModule]
in app.component.html
instead
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
do
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
in app.module.ts
remove import { Routes, RouterModule } from '@angular/router';
you not need it here you already made a separated Routing file
add
import { AppRoutingModule } from './app.routing';
import { SimpleComponent } from './simple/simple.component';
instead
@NgModule({
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot()
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do
@NgModule({
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent, SimpleComponent ],
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
AppRoutingModule
],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do that as following declarations
then imports
the order is important as long you made a separated routing file
for more details and reference take a look on the link mentioned above.
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
here the code to solve this issue StackBlitz
in app.routing.ts
instead
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
do
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: 'main',
component: AppComponent,
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
}
]
}
];
and instead
exports: [RouterModule, appRoutes]
do
exports: [RouterModule]
in app.component.html
instead
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
do
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
in app.module.ts
remove import { Routes, RouterModule } from '@angular/router';
you not need it here you already made a separated Routing file
add
import { AppRoutingModule } from './app.routing';
import { SimpleComponent } from './simple/simple.component';
instead
@NgModule({
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot()
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do
@NgModule({
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent, SimpleComponent ],
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
AppRoutingModule
],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do that as following declarations
then imports
the order is important as long you made a separated routing file
for more details and reference take a look on the link mentioned above.
here the code to solve this issue StackBlitz
in app.routing.ts
instead
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: '',
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent
},
// default route, *WORKS*
{
path: '',
component: AppComponent
},
// fallback route, *WORKS*
{
path: '**',
component: AppComponent,
redirectTo: ''
}
]
}
];
do
const appRoutes: Routes = [
{
path: 'main',
component: AppComponent,
children: [
// aux route with named outlet, **DOES NTO WORK :(**
{
path: 'simple',
component: SimpleComponent,
outlet: 'simpleOutlet'
}
]
}
];
and instead
exports: [RouterModule, appRoutes]
do
exports: [RouterModule]
in app.component.html
instead
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
do
<h1>
app component
</h1>
<router-outlet></router-outlet>
<router-outlet name="simpleOutlet"></router-outlet>
in app.module.ts
remove import { Routes, RouterModule } from '@angular/router';
you not need it here you already made a separated Routing file
add
import { AppRoutingModule } from './app.routing';
import { SimpleComponent } from './simple/simple.component';
instead
@NgModule({
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot()
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do
@NgModule({
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent, SimpleComponent ],
imports: [
BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
AppRoutingModule
],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
do that as following declarations
then imports
the order is important as long you made a separated routing file
for more details and reference take a look on the link mentioned above.
answered Nov 12 at 11:14
Amir Fawzy
2188
2188
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
add a comment |
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
Thank you so much! For this minimalistic example, it finally works =) I'm still having trouble with my actual project where I want to use this concept. Because I use seperate routing config files and resolver services there but I'm surre I will figure it out. Unfortunately, I cannot give you positive ratings yet. But imagine, I gave you 200, which is about how many hours I've been stuck on this now.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 14:26
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Change RouterModule
to RouterModule.forRoot()
in app.module file:
@NgModule({
imports: [ BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot() //this line
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in theforRoot()
call as you wrote? For exampleforRoot([appRoutes])
(withappRoutes
being imported fromapp.routing.ts
?
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
remove theforRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Change RouterModule
to RouterModule.forRoot()
in app.module file:
@NgModule({
imports: [ BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot() //this line
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in theforRoot()
call as you wrote? For exampleforRoot([appRoutes])
(withappRoutes
being imported fromapp.routing.ts
?
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
remove theforRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Change RouterModule
to RouterModule.forRoot()
in app.module file:
@NgModule({
imports: [ BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot() //this line
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
Change RouterModule
to RouterModule.forRoot()
in app.module file:
@NgModule({
imports: [ BrowserModule,
FormsModule,
RouterModule.forRoot() //this line
],
declarations: [ AppComponent, HelloComponent ],
bootstrap: [ AppComponent ]
})
answered Nov 12 at 9:48
לבני מלכה
8,6911524
8,6911524
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in theforRoot()
call as you wrote? For exampleforRoot([appRoutes])
(withappRoutes
being imported fromapp.routing.ts
?
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
remove theforRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
add a comment |
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in theforRoot()
call as you wrote? For exampleforRoot([appRoutes])
(withappRoutes
being imported fromapp.routing.ts
?
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
remove theforRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in the
forRoot()
call as you wrote? For example forRoot([appRoutes])
(with appRoutes
being imported from app.routing.ts
?– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
Thank you! But I don't undestand what exactly you advise me to do. Isn't there an argument missing in the
forRoot()
call as you wrote? For example forRoot([appRoutes])
(with appRoutes
being imported from app.routing.ts
?– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 10:19
remove the
forRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
remove the
forRoot([appRoutes])
from route as in this example:angular.io/tutorial/toh-pt5– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 11:57
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53258519%2fangular-auxiliary-routes-with-named-router-outlets-error-error-uncaught-in-pr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
it will be easy to help you if you put your relevant code here:stackblitz.com/edit/angular-6s9716 (fork and post the link)
– לבני מלכה
Nov 12 at 9:11
thank you for your response! I updated the original post.
– RichardM90ger
Nov 12 at 9:43