feat(router-store): add action creator for root router actions

[Jefiozie]

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• The commit message follows our guidelines: https://github.com/ngrx/platform/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Documentation has been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

we added the action creator for root router actions

[ ] Bugfix
[X] Feature
[ ] Code style update (formatting, local variables)
[ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
[ ] Build related changes
[ ] CI related changes
[ ] Documentation content changes
[ ] Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

Closes #2206

What is the new behavior?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Other information

[ngrxbot]

Preview docs changes for 213dace at https://previews.ngrx.io/pr2272-213dace/

[Jefiozie]

@timdeschryver, I made the changes to the doc. I also made a small diagram for the route-store flow. I think a picture tells more than some text. Looking forward on your reply.

[timdeschryver]

Tbh, I have no idea how these actions are used in the wild.
I'm wondering if we also should provide a router action creator, to keep them generic.
This because a const can't have a generic AFAIK.

This would look as follows:

// allow the flexibility to create a custom router action with a generic
export const createRouterCancelAction = <
  T,
  V extends BaseRouterStoreState = SerializedRouterStateSnapshot
>() => createAction(ROUTER_CANCEL, props<{ payload: RouterCancelPayload<T, V> }>());

// the default implementation with the default router store state
export const routerCancelAction = createRouterCancelAction<SerializedRouterStateSnapshot>();

Does this make sense?

[Jefiozie]

Tbh, I have no idea how these actions are used in the wild.
I'm wondering if we also should provide a router action creator, to keep them generic.
This because a const can't have a generic AFAIK.
This would look as follows:
// allow the flexibility to create a custom router action with a generic
export const createRouterCancelAction = <
T,
V extends BaseRouterStoreState = SerializedRouterStateSnapshot
() => createAction(ROUTER_CANCEL, props<{ payload: RouterCancelPayload<T, V> }>());
// the default implementation with the default router store state
export const routerCancelAction = createRouterCancelAction();
Does this make sense?

So the main reason I think we should do this is to have a common Actions API for all of the packages of @ngrx. I believe this will help people to adopt it easier as they understand the way it is working.

Do you agree with this?

I don't think we should change the default router reducer in a similar way as in the @ngrx/store. Probably most projects use the default reducer and use the actions for specific needs. What are you thoughts around this?

[timdeschryver]

I don't think we should change the default router reducer in a similar way as in the @ngrx/store.

I agree, the reason I mentioned it was for our end-users.

The only reason I see to create the router action creators, is for cases where a custom router serializer is used. In these serializers it's possible to add extra meta-data to the router state, which is added to the dispatched action.

In the current implementation (without creators), it's possible to define this extra meta-data with the generic on the Action. This can be helpful if the Action is used in, for example, an effect because it will provide a type-safe Action with the extra meta-data, for example you be able to do action.routerState.foo.

With the current implementation with the creator functions, this isn't possible anymore and the routerState on the action will always be of the type SerializedRouterStateSnapshot.

That being said, I think this PR is good. We can always add the router action creators later if needed, because I'm uncertain if this is use-case is being used.

[Jefiozie]

Okay, just to be sure, this PR is good for now? 😊

[timdeschryver]

For me it is! 👍

[Jefiozie]

Great, thanks for your help will make a separate PR for the image that explains the action order.