Allow to specify the route name for a path-based view

Oh this is reeeeallly cool.

Help. :)

+++ b/core/modules/views/lib/Drupal/views/Plugin/views/display/PathPluginBase.php
@@ -418,6 +422,12 @@ public function buildOptionsForm(&$form, &$form_state) {
+          '#description' => $this->t('For advanced usecases you might want to set the used route name for your own.'),

This sentence sounds a bit funky :)

Also, what happens if the route you put there requires some parameters?

How about:

"For advanced use cases, you might want to set a specific route name."

?

In that cases you need #2138665: Allow to specific route parameters to be defined via the views UI

Shouldn't they be a single patch then?

IMHO, they might not rely on each other, but they also don't *work* without the other :) And the patches are quite small..

Thanks for adding some explanation for "outsiders" to this issue. :)

So, reading between the lines, it sounds like you would use this if you wanted to have a View "take over" an existing route that was already in core/contrib? Like if we had kept the node front page at /node with a route name of like node.frontpage, we would need this in order for Views to provide its override, and it would do so by also specifying node.frontpage as its route name. Correct?

If that's so, we should really clarify that in the field description, since that sounds very useful, and also not especially advanced. Something like:

"Use this to override an existing path defined by another module, by entering the same route name."

(If I'm way off base on my assumptions of what this field is for, btw, I'd still like to see a description here that gives some clue as to when to use this field and how.)

Based on the example of e.g. admin page overrides that don't take parameters, I think this is OK to handle separately from #2138665: Allow to specific route parameters to be defined via the views UI.

Ah-ha! I think I get it now. So it's only for if you care about the cleanliness of the route machine name, which in 99.9% of cases you don't, because it'll just be auto-generated as view.blah.blah and that is totally fine. Why is this a major bug report and not a normal feature request then..?

Then I guess my only question is if the audience is module developers, then why does this belong in the UI at all, when presumably module devs could just hand-edit their YML files to change the route name for their module's default config themselves. If it does stay in the UI, it should probably be moved under the "Advanced" fieldset somewhere. Because right now it's smack in the face of people who are setting a Path, which is at least an 80% use case in the Views UI, for what is probably a 2% use case (only for module developers who care about route name cleanliness). I get especially worried about this if #2138665: Allow to specific route parameters to be defined via the views UI also goes in, since it'll only make this same form even longer and more complex.

If I have misunderstood, again, I might need smaller words. :P

Is it possible to add this setting under the advanced section?

I am torn between dawehner and webchick here, both have very good points.

But, the last patch is a very good compromise (just the API addition).

RTBC, thanks dawehner.

Looks good. Committed to 8.x.