Conflict when map path parameter and static url in same resource

[matheus-meneses]

Description

Conflict map when use path parameter and static url in same url resource

How to reproduce

package main

import (
	"github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
)

func main() {
	g := gin.Default()
	g.GET("/path/:dynamicpath", func(c *gin.Context) {
		c.String(200, "Hello dynamic", c.Param("name"))
	})
	g.GET("/path/staticpath", func(c *gin.Context) {
		c.String(200, "Hello static", c.Param("name"))
	})

	g.Run(":9000")
}

Expectations

Both url's are mapping in Gin Engine

Actual result

panic: 'staticpath' in new path '/path/staticpath' conflicts with existing wildcard ':dynamicpath' in existing prefix '/path/:dynamicpath'

goroutine 1 [running]:
github.com/gin-gonic/gin.(*node).addRoute(0xc00046b110, 0xc0002cc456, 0xa, 0xc000302570, 0x6, 0x6)
        /Users/bi001189/go/pkg/mod/github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.6.3/tree.go:215 +0x152b
github.com/gin-gonic/gin.(*Engine).addRoute(0xc00013b900, 0xc00011fbe0, 0x3, 0xc0002cc450, 0x10, 0xc000302570, 0x6, 0x6)
        /Users/bi001189/go/pkg/mod/github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.6.3/gin.go:264 +0x1e7
github.com/gin-gonic/gin.(*RouterGroup).handle(0xc00013b900, 0xc00011fbe0, 0x3, 0xc00011fbb0, 0x10, 0xc000302570, 0x6, 0x6, 0x0, 0x0)
        /Users/bi001189/go/pkg/mod/github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.6.3/routergroup.go:75 +0x132
github.com/gin-gonic/gin.(*RouterGroup).Handle(0xc00013b900, 0xc00011fbe0, 0x3, 0xc00011fbb0, 0x10, 0xc000119840, 0x5, 0x8, 0x0, 0x0)
        /Users/bi001189/go/pkg/mod/github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.6.3/routergroup.go:93 +0x15d
main.registerGinEngine(0xc000121160, 0x11, 0x1, 0x101, 0xc000144480, 0x2, 0x2, 0x1, 0x1388, 0xc00010ed20, ...)

Environment

• go version: 1.14.4
• gin version (or commit ref): 1.6.3
• operating system: macOS Catalina 10.15.5 (19F96)

[linvis]

see #2016

due to httprouter which gin used for url router, not support path parameter and static url in the same time

[valclark1]

I've encountered this issue also. I believe it's very counter-intuitive and hinders building semantic routes. Instead, I have to opt for a convoluted route pattern and have to consider if to replace gin...I wish they had a disclaimer in the Readme or even explain this issue in the routing section. I wouldn't have had to now consider less ideal routes because of the time cost to refactor.