Bug: ASGI mounted at base root ("/") intercepts dynamic path params about litestar HOT 6 OPEN

Also worth noting that if the path isn't dynamic, it is not a problem - this is b/c we handle "plain" routes separately, and before we test for mounted paths:

We then test for mounted paths before we step through the route trie:

This is the source of the issue, b/c the dynamic route is only resolved as part of the trie traversal, but it never gets that far because the path /whatever/123 matches the mount path /.

So, I think we'd either need to get smarter with our mount_paths_regex so that it doesn't match on routes that are registered adjacent to the mounted application with variable paths, or, traverse the routing trie before checking for a match on a mount path, and only then try to match a mount path if we'd have otherwise thrown the 404.

from litestar.

Loosely related, we also cannot mount under a variable path, b/c the mount path regex includes the path variable placeholder, i.e., re.compile("/mounted/{num:int}") doesn't match /mounted/123.

E.g.,

@asgi("/mounted/{num:int}", is_mount=True)
async def mounted(scope: Scope, receive: Receive, send: Send) -> None:
    await send({"type": "http.response.start", "status": 200})
    await send({"type": "http.response.body", "body": b"Mounted!"})

from litestar.

Maybe mounts should be routed during tree traversal, instead of separate from it. If we hit a node that has both a mount and child nodes with regular handlers, we try to route it further via the trie, and if that fails we then pipe it through the mount?

from litestar.

I also came across this bug. Was going to file over at sqladmin-litestar-plugin but found it's already been raised there and pushed over here.

from litestar.

Maybe mounts should be routed during tree traversal, instead of separate from it. If we hit a node that has both a mount and child nodes with regular handlers, we try to route it further via the trie, and if that fails we then pipe it through the mount?

Sounds solid

from litestar.

Going back to this, I'm having second thought if we actually want to allow this. Mounting ASGI apps at the root path is always going to be kinda weird and cause unexpected behaviour in some cases, because you then have two entry points for your application. Maybe we should just not allow this in the first place and save us a lot of trouble?

from litestar.