Allow string-only target definition for sibling-level matches

[Barnaby Claydon]

Currently to match:

          '/retention': {
            target: targets.menuRetentionRouteTarget,
            '/*': 'beforeAll',
            '/':  'index'
          },

one has to write it as:

          '/retention': {
            target: targets.menuRetentionRouteTarget,
            '/*': 'beforeAll',
            '/':  {
              target: targets.menuRetentionRouteTarget,
              '/': 'index'
            }
          },

[Simon Højberg]

This is really only a problem with the '/*' route right?

[Barnaby Claydon]

I believe it occurs because we match /* and then stop matching on the same level, requiring the nested / definition to be picked-up.

[Simon Højberg]

Wondering if this is actually what we want.

Having 2 actions match on the same route level, will not ensure execution order, unless we special case the '/*' route.

[Barnaby Claydon]

That's a good point, and it's now easier to write given the target ancestor fallback you recently merged:

          '/retention': {
            target: targets.menuRetentionRouteTarget,
            '/*': 'beforeAll',
            '/':  {
              '/': 'index'
            }
          },

The non-obvious part is having to specify '/' twice. How could we make that more intuitive?

[Simon Højberg]

I wonder if we should allow this instead:

'/retention': {
  target: targets.menuRetentionRouteTarget,
  '/': ['beforeAll', 'index']
}