Enterprise has an issue overriding sub endpoints. The only way to properly extend them is to save them somewhere, and reference the sub routers directly.

When trying to "merge" routes, you either overwrite the endpoint, or get a panic.

https://goplay.tools/snippet/6JXkSIdJ997

Alternatives

Duplicate routes

One idea is to just replace the entire sub router in Enterprise. Essentially copying the routes to both places, and using a unit test to ensure Enterprise is a super set.

This unfortunately cannot work because you cannot overwrite a route in chi.

panic: chi: attempting to Mount() a handler on an existing path, '/organizations'

Write some r.Merge(r1, r2) or r.Extend("/organizations") function

The idea is to fetch the router dynamically, and extend it. Rather than hard coding it in some field in the API struct. Unfortunately traversing the router is only supported by r.Routes() and chi.Walk(). Both expose the http.Handler but not the router. So you cannot fetch the chi.Mux dynamically without some serious changes 😢

Write a MergeRouters(a, b chi.Routes)

This is possible, but such a pain. Essentially you can call r.Routes() to traverse all the sub routers and endpoints. If you assume no typecasting (route.(*chi.Mux)), then you cannot extend these routes, only read them.

So to merge them, we'd have to build our own /pattern tree (handling things like r.Route("/nested/stuff") being depth=2 in the tree.

Then merge 2 route trees that we build.

Then convert that route tree back to a chi.Mux by doing a depth first search and doing the

chi.Route("/pattern", func(r chi.Router) {
 // When you do `r.Group` it creates a fresh middleware stack.
 // I'm not sure how this looks in the `.Routes()` response. Our tree
 // would have to be able to have different middleware stacks for the
 // same pattern nodes.
 r.Use(treeNode.Middlewares...)

 for _, subRouter := range treeNode.Routers {
   dfs(r, subRouter)
 }
 for _, endpoint := range treeNode.Endpoints {
   r.Method(endpoint.Method, endpoint.Pattern, endpoint.Handler)
 }
})

This really feels like we'd just writing our own http.Mux. It can be done, and it's not that challenging, it's just a lot of leg work that I don't find very useful at this time.