Keep track of path when parsing route URL

[claustres]

When parsing the route URL here the path is not kept while it could be useful for some adapters.

For instance, we've developed https://github.com/kalisio/logspout-slack and we need to provide the path part of the webhook (
of the form https://hooks.slack.com/services/xxx) as a configuration option.

[michaelshobbs]

i'd definitely accept a PR addressing this

[michaelshobbs]

alternatively, could you use Route.Options to pass the path around?

[claustres]

If it seems useful to the community I can try. However, I'm really new to Go and it could take time before I write decent code ;-)

[claustres]

@michaelshobbs Do you mean add the path as a query parameter and get it back as an option in the route?

[michaelshobbs]

Apologies it's been awhile since I've been in this codebase. I assumed you already had a way to get the path into the system and we were just dropping it. Is that true?

[claustres]

I am not sure to get you but what I would like to be able to do is for instance:

docker run --name="logspout" \
	--volume=/var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock \
	...
	logspout:v3.2.11 \
	slack://hooks.slack.com/services/xxx

But in my adapter when I'd like to get back the route info I can't get the path back:

func NewSlackAdapter(route *router.Route) (router.LogAdapter, error) {
	// Here route.Address is "hooks.slack.com", the path part "/services/xxx" has been lost
        ...
}

Maybe I am wrong but it appears to me neither the type to the parsing take care of it.

Maybe as you suggest there is another way to get the path back as well.

[michaelshobbs]

Maybe I am wrong but it appears to me neither the type to the parsing take care of it.

that is correct. however it does exist in the variable u (type URL) defined on L91

logspout/router/routes.go

Line 91 in 4e88b84

u, err := url.Parse(expandedRoute)

golang net/url docs: https://golang.org/pkg/net/url/#URL

So we could store u.Path in Route.Options OR we could add another field to the type. I'm fine with either.

[claustres]

I think that adding a new field is more in line with the existing base.