Fix incorrect priority on route matching #163

dmgnr · 2026-01-03T03:33:24Z

Summary by CodeRabbit

Performance Improvements
- Route matching now prioritises more specific routes, filters out invalid entries earlier, and stops on the first match for faster navigation and responsiveness.
Bug Fixes / Refactor
- Simplified matching control flow to avoid ambiguous results, improving reliability and predictability of route resolution.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

changeset-bot · 2026-01-03T03:33:27Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f264a12

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

coderabbitai · 2026-01-03T03:33:33Z

Walkthrough

Pre-filters and pre-sorts route candidates in src/server/helpers/match.ts using a new scoreRoute heuristic that ranks static > params > catch-all (with root special-cased), switches matching to early-return on first match, and adds a changeset patch noting the route-matching priority fix.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Route matching optimisation `src/server/helpers/match.ts`	Filters out falsy route entries; adds `scoreRoute(routePath: string): number` to rank routes (static segments score higher, params and catch-alls lower, root handled specially); sorts candidates by score and changes loop to early-return on first successful match (removes previous `matchedRoute` accumulation).
Changeset `.changeset/khaki-coins-travel.md`	Adds a patch changeset documenting a fix for incorrect route-matching priority.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐇 I hopped through paths with careful score,

Counted still steps, then bounded for more,
First clear match and I slowed my race,
Sorted the trails and left a neat trace,
A crunchy carrot for tidy place 🥕

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 50.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run `@coderabbitai generate docstrings` to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title directly and clearly describes the main change: fixing incorrect priority in route matching. The implementation confirms this is the primary focus, with the new scoreRoute heuristic addressing route prioritisation.

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9999a47 and f264a12.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (2)
60-62: Consider pre-computing scores to improve performance.

The scoreRoute function is invoked multiple times for each route during the sort operation, causing redundant parsing of route paths. For better performance, especially with many routes, consider computing scores once before sorting.
🔎 Proposed optimisation
-  const sortedRoutes = Object.entries(appPathRoutes)
-    .filter(([routePath, file]) => routePath && file)
-    .sort(([a], [b]) => scoreRoute(b) - scoreRoute(a));
+  const sortedRoutes = Object.entries(appPathRoutes)
+    .filter(([routePath, file]) => routePath && file)
+    .map(([routePath, file]) => ({ routePath, file, score: scoreRoute(routePath) }))
+    .sort((a, b) => b.score - a.score)
+    .map(({ routePath, file }) => [routePath, file] as const);
64-70: Early exit pattern improves clarity and efficiency.

The refactoring to return immediately upon finding a match is cleaner and more efficient than accumulating a result. Good change.

Note: The function can return undefined when no route matches. Consider adding an explicit return type annotation (e.g., { filename: string; params: Record<string, string | string[]> } | undefined) for better type safety.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ee4530e and 60b9d0c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts

src/server/helpers/match.ts

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 0

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (1)
73-89: Critical: Catch-all segments have the same priority as dynamic segments.

While the root route fix (Infinity) and optional catch-all distinction are now correct, a critical bug remains: catch-all segments [...param] (line 83) receive the same score (+2) as dynamic segments [param] (line 84). This means routes like /user/[id] and /blog/[...slug] have equal priority, even though the dynamic segment should be more specific and match first.

Expected priority (high to low):

Static segments about → +3 ✓

Dynamic segments [param] → +2 ✓

Catch-all [...param] → should be lower (e.g., +1)

Optional catch-all [[...param]] → -1 ✓
🔎 Proposed fix
 function scoreRoute(routePath: string) {
   const parts = routePath.split('/').filter(Boolean);
 
   let score = 0;
   // Root path
   if(parts.length === 0) score = Infinity;
   for (const part of parts) {
     // Optional catch-all
     if (part.startsWith('[[...')) score += -1;
     // Catch-all
-    else if (part.startsWith('[...')) score += 2;
+    else if (part.startsWith('[...')) score += 1;
     else if (part.startsWith('[')) score += 2;
     else score += 3;
   }
 
   return score + parts.length;
 }

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (1)
60-62: Verify that file is non-empty before destructuring.

The filter checks that file is truthy, but since file is an array, an empty array would pass the filter yet cause filePath to be undefined during destructuring at line 64. Consider strengthening the filter to verify the array has at least one element.
🔎 Proposed fix
  const sortedRoutes = Object.entries(appPathRoutes)
-    .filter(([routePath, file]) => routePath && file)
+    .filter(([routePath, file]) => routePath && file && file.length > 0)
     .sort(([a], [b]) => scoreRoute(b) - scoreRoute(a));

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7167cb4 and a2b4049.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (1)

64-70: Good refactor: early return simplifies control flow.

The early return pattern is cleaner than the previous matchedRoute accumulation approach. Note that the function implicitly returns undefined when no route matches, so ensure downstream code handles this case appropriately.

dmgnr · 2026-01-03T04:03:50Z

That should be clear to merge.
Fixes: #162

k0d13 · 2026-01-04T22:50:42Z

Build is failing

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 0

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (1)
47-73: Add explicit return type annotation to findMatchingRoute.

With strict TypeScript enabled, the function should have an explicit return type. Add ReturnType annotation to clarify what this function returns:
export function findMatchingRoute(
  nextServer: NextNodeServer,
  requestPathname: string,
): { filename: string; params: Record<string, string | string[]> } | undefined
This improves type safety and helps the TypeScript compiler with type inference for callers.

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (2)
64-72: LGTM: Early return on first match is a good pattern.

The early return improves readability and ensures the highest-priority match is returned immediately.

Minor observation: the guard on line 65 (if (!filePath) continue) is redundant given the filter on line 61 already ensures non-empty arrays. Consider removing it for cleaner code.

75-91: Previous review concerns have been addressed.

The scoring logic now correctly handles:

Root path / receives Infinity score (highest priority)

Optional catch-all [[...param]] receives -1 (lower than catch-all's 0)

This establishes the correct priority order: static > dynamic > catch-all > optional catch-all.

Minor style nit: missing space after if on line 80.
🔎 Optional style fix
-  if(parts.length === 0) score = Infinity;
+  if (parts.length === 0) score = Infinity;

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a2b4049 and 9999a47.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/server/helpers/match.ts (1)

60-62: LGTM: Route sorting logic is correct.

The filtering and descending sort by score ensures more specific routes are evaluated first, which is the correct approach for route-matching priority.

k0d13 · 2026-01-05T04:13:36Z

Linter is failing too

dmgnr · 2026-01-05T06:22:02Z

oh my god a single space

Fix incorrect priority on route matching

60b9d0c

github-actions bot added the server Modifications or updates to server-handling code label Jan 3, 2026

coderabbitai bot requested changes Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/server/helpers/match.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

dmgnr added 2 commits January 3, 2026 10:38

Add changeset for fix incorrect priority

7167cb4

Add cases for root path and optional catch-all in route scoring

a2b4049

coderabbitai bot reviewed Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

coderabbitai bot approved these changes Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Fix minor mistakes

6684c69

FIx type issue

9999a47

coderabbitai bot reviewed Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Fix formatting

f264a12

k0d13 merged commit 2f33fe6 into k0d13:main Jan 11, 2026
12 of 16 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Fix incorrect priority on route matching #163

Fix incorrect priority on route matching #163

Uh oh!

dmgnr commented Jan 3, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

dmgnr commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

k0d13 commented Jan 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

k0d13 commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dmgnr commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Fix incorrect priority on route matching #163

Fix incorrect priority on route matching #163

Uh oh!

Conversation

dmgnr commented Jan 3, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🦋 Changeset detected

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Poem

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dmgnr commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

k0d13 commented Jan 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

k0d13 commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

dmgnr commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

dmgnr commented Jan 3, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

k0d13 commented Jan 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading