<Redirect>s inside <Switch><Route>s<Switch> elements to <Routes><Route element><Route path> patterns<Link to> valuesuseRoutes instead of react-router-configuseNavigate instead of useHistory<Link> component prop<NavLink exact> to <NavLink end>activeClassName and activeStyle props from <NavLink />StaticRouter from react-router-dom/serveruseRouteMatch with useMatch<Prompt> is not currently supportedInstead of upgrading and updating all of your code at once (which is incredibly difficult and prone to bugs), the backwards compatibility package enables you to upgrade one component, one hook, and one route at a time by running both v5 and v6 in parallel. Any code you haven't touched is still running the very same code it was before. Once all components are exclusively using the v6 APIs, your app no longer needs the compatibility package and is running on v6. The official guide can be found here.
We recommend using the backwards compatibility package to upgrade apps that have more than a few routes. Otherwise, we hope this guide will help you do the upgrade all at once!
React Router version 6 introduces several powerful new features, as well as improved compatibility with the latest versions of React. It also introduces a few breaking changes from version 5. This document is a comprehensive guide on how to upgrade your v4/5 app to v6 while hopefully being able to ship as often as possible as you go.
The examples in this guide will show code samples of how you might have built something in a v5 app, followed by how you would accomplish the same thing in v6. There will also be an explanation of why we made this change and how it's going to improve both your code and the overall user experience of people who are using your app.
In general, the process looks like this:
The following is a detailed breakdown of each step that should help you migrate quickly and with confidence to v6.
React Router v6 makes heavy use of React hooks, so you'll need to be on React 16.8 or greater before attempting the upgrade to React Router v6. The good news is that React Router v5 is compatible with React >= 15, so if you're on v5 (or v4) you should be able to upgrade React without touching any of your router code.
Once you've upgraded to React 16.8, you should deploy your app. Then you can come back later and pick up where you left off.
It will be easier to make the switch to React Router v6 if you upgrade to v5.1 first. In v5.1, we released an enhancement to the handling of <Route children> elements that will help smooth the transition to v6. Instead of using <Route component> and <Route render> props, just use regular element <Route children> everywhere and use hooks to access the router's internal state.
// v4 and v5 before 5.1
function User({ id }) {
// ...
}
function App() {
return (
<Switch>
<Route exact path="/" component={Home} />
<Route path="/about" component={About} />
<Route
path="/users/:id"
render={({ match }) => (
<User id={match.params.id} />
)}
/>
</Switch>
);
}
// v5.1 preferred style
function User() {
let { id } = useParams();
// ...
}
function App() {
return (
<Switch>
<Route exact path="/">
<Home />
</Route>
<Route path="/about">
<About />
</Route>
{/* Can also use a named `children` prop */}
<Route path="/users/:id" children={<User />} />
</Switch>
);
}
You can read more about v5.1's hooks API and the rationale behind the move to regular elements on our blog.
In general, React Router v5.1 (and v6) favors elements over components (or "element types"). There are a few reasons for this, but we'll discuss more further down when we discuss v6's <Route> API.
When you use regular React elements you get to pass the props explicitly. This helps with code readability and maintenance over time. If you were using <Route render> to get a hold of the params, you can just
useParams inside your route component instead.
Along with the upgrade to v5.1, you should replace any usage of withRouter with hooks. You should also get rid of any "floating" <Route> elements that are not inside a <Switch>. Again, the blog post about v5.1 explains how to do this in greater detail.
In summary, to upgrade from v4/5 to v5.1, you should:
<Route children> instead of <Route render> and/or <Route component>
propswithRouter with hooks<Route>s that are not inside a <Switch> with useRouteMatch,
or wrap them in a <Switch><Redirect>s inside <Switch>Remove any <Redirect> elements that are directly inside a <Switch>.
If you want to redirect on the initial render, you should move the redirect logic to your server (we wrote more about this here).
If you want to redirect client-side, move your <Redirect> into a <Route render> prop.
// Change this:
<Switch>
<Redirect from="about" to="about-us" />
</Switch>
// to this:
<Switch>
<Route path="about" render={() => <Redirect to="about-us" />} />
</Switch>
Normal <Redirect> elements that are not inside a <Switch> are ok to remain. They will become <Navigate> elements in v6.
<Route>sReplace any elements inside a <Switch> that are not plain <Route> elements with a regular <Route>. This includes any <PrivateRoute>-style custom components.
You can read more about the rationale behind this here, including some tips about how to use a <Route render> prop in v5 to achieve the same effect.
Again, once your app is upgraded to v5.1 you should test and deploy it, and pick this guide back up when you're ready to continue.
Heads up: This is the biggest step in the migration and will probably take the most time and effort.
For this step, you'll need to install React Router v6. If you're managing dependencies via npm:
$ npm install react-router-dom
# or, for a React Native app
$ npm install react-router-native
You'll also want to remove the history dependency from your package.json. The history library is a direct dependency of v6 (not a peer dep), so you won't ever import or use it directly. Instead, you'll use the useNavigate() hook for all navigation (see below).
<Switch> elements to <Routes>React Router v6 introduces a Routes component that is kind of like Switch, but a lot more powerful. The main advantages of Routes over Switch are:
<Route>s and <Link>s inside a <Routes> are relative. This leads to
leaner and more predictable code in <Route path> and <Link to><Switch>React.lazyIn order to use v6, you'll need to convert all your <Switch> elements to <Routes>. If you already made the upgrade to v5.1, you're halfway there.
First, let's talk about relative routes and links in v6.
In v5, you had to be very explicit about how you wanted to nest your routes and links. In both cases, if you wanted nested routes and links you had to build the <Route path> and <Link to> props from the parent route's match.url and match.path properties. Additionally, if you wanted to nest routes, you had to put them in the child route's component.
// This is a React Router v5 app
import {
BrowserRouter,
Switch,
Route,
Link,
useRouteMatch,
} from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
return (
<BrowserRouter>
<Switch>
<Route exact path="/">
<Home />
</Route>
<Route path="/users">
<Users />
</Route>
</Switch>
</BrowserRouter>
);
}
function Users() {
// In v5, nested routes are rendered by the child component, so
// you have <Switch> elements all over your app for nested UI.
// You build nested routes and links using match.url and match.path.
let match = useRouteMatch();
return (
<div>
<nav>
<Link to={`${match.url}/me`}>My Profile</Link>
</nav>
<Switch>
<Route path={`${match.path}/me`}>
<OwnUserProfile />
</Route>
<Route path={`${match.path}/:id`}>
<UserProfile />
</Route>
</Switch>
</div>
);
}
This is the same app in v6:
// This is a React Router v6 app
import {
BrowserRouter,
Routes,
Route,
Link,
} from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
return (
<BrowserRouter>
<Routes>
<Route path="/" element={<Home />} />
<Route path="users/*" element={<Users />} />
</Routes>
</BrowserRouter>
);
}
function Users() {
return (
<div>
<nav>
<Link to="me">My Profile</Link>
</nav>
<Routes>
<Route path=":id" element={<UserProfile />} />
<Route path="me" element={<OwnUserProfile />} />
</Routes>
</div>
);
}
A few important things to notice about v6 in this example:
<Route path> and <Link to> are relative. This means that they
automatically build on the parent route's path and URL so you don't have to
manually interpolate match.url or match.path<Route exact> is gone. Instead, routes with descendant routes (defined in
other components) use a trailing * in their path to indicate they match
deeply<Switch>You may have also noticed that all <Route children> from the v5 app changed to <Route element> in v6. Assuming you followed the upgrade steps to v5.1, this should be as simple as moving your route element from the child position to a named element prop.
<Route element>In the section about upgrading to v5.1, we promised that we'd discuss the advantages of using regular elements instead of components (or element types) for rendering. Let's take a quick break from upgrading and talk about that now.
For starters, we see React itself taking the lead here with the <Suspense fallback={<Spinner />}> API. The fallback prop takes a React element, not a component. This lets you easily pass whatever props you want to your <Spinner> from the component that renders it.
Using elements instead of components means we don't have to provide a passProps-style API so you can get the props you need to your elements. For example, in a component-based API there is no good way to pass props to the <Profile> element that is rendered when <Route path=":userId" component={Profile} /> matches. Most React libraries who take this approach end up with either an API like <Route component={Profile} passProps={{ animate: true }} /> or use a render prop or higher-order component.
Also, in case you didn't notice, in v4 and v5 Route's rendering API became rather large. It went something like this:
// Ah, this is nice and simple!
<Route path=":userId" component={Profile} />
// But wait, how do I pass custom props to the <Profile> element??
// Hmm, maybe we can use a render prop in those situations?
<Route
path=":userId"
render={routeProps => (
<Profile routeProps={routeProps} animate={true} />
)}
/>
// Ok, now we have two ways to render something with a route. :/
// But wait, what if we want to render something when a route
// *doesn't* match the URL, like a Not Found page? Maybe we
// can use another render prop with slightly different semantics?
<Route
path=":userId"
children={({ match }) => (
match ? (
<Profile match={match} animate={true} />
) : (
<NotFound />
)
)}
/>
// What if I want to get access to the route match, or I need
// to redirect deeper in the tree?
function DeepComponent(routeStuff) {
// got routeStuff, phew!
}
export default withRouter(DeepComponent);
// Well hey, now at least we've covered all our use cases!
// ... *facepalm*
At least part of the reason for this API sprawl was that React did not provide any way for us to get the information from the <Route> to your route element, so we had to invent clever ways to get both the route data and your own custom props through to your elements: component, render props, passProps higher-order-components ... until hooks came along!
Now, the conversation above goes like this:
// Ah, nice and simple API. And it's just like the <Suspense> API!
// Nothing more to learn here.
<Route path=":userId" element={<Profile />} />
// But wait, how do I pass custom props to the <Profile>
// element? Oh ya, it's just an element. Easy.
<Route path=":userId" element={<Profile animate={true} />} />
// Ok, but how do I access the router's data, like the URL params
// or the current location?
function Profile({ animate }) {
let params = useParams();
let location = useLocation();
}
// But what about components deep in the tree?
function DeepComponent() {
// oh right, same as anywhere else
let navigate = useNavigate();
}
// Aaaaaaaaand we're done here.
Another important reason for using the element prop in v6 is that <Route children> is reserved for nesting routes. This is one of people's favorite features from v3 and @reach/router, and we're bringing it back in v6. Taking the code in the previous example one step further, we can hoist all <Route> elements into a single route config:
// This is a React Router v6 app
import {
BrowserRouter,
Routes,
Route,
Link,
Outlet,
} from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
return (
<BrowserRouter>
<Routes>
<Route path="/" element={<Home />} />
<Route path="users" element={<Users />}>
<Route path="me" element={<OwnUserProfile />} />
<Route path=":id" element={<UserProfile />} />
</Route>
</Routes>
</BrowserRouter>
);
}
function Users() {
return (
<div>
<nav>
<Link to="me">My Profile</Link>
</nav>
<Outlet />
</div>
);
}
This step is optional of course, but it's really nice for small to medium sized apps that don't have thousands of routes.
Notice how <Route> elements nest naturally inside a <Routes> element. Nested routes build their path by adding to the parent route's path. We didn't need a trailing * on <Route path="users"> this time because when the routes are defined in one spot the router is able to see all your nested routes.
You'll only need the trailing * when there is another <Routes> somewhere in that route's descendant tree. In that case, the descendant <Routes> will match on the portion of the pathname that remains (see the previous example for what this looks like in practice).
When using a nested config, routes with children should render an <Outlet> in order to render their child routes. This makes it easy to render layouts with nested UI.
<Route path> patternsReact Router v6 uses a simplified path format. <Route path> in v6 supports only 2 kinds of placeholders: dynamic :id-style params and * wildcards. A * wildcard may be used only at the end of a path, not in the middle.
All of the following are valid route paths in v6:
/groups
/groups/admin
/users/:id
/users/:id/messages
/files/*
/files/:id/*
The following RegExp-style route paths are not valid in v6:
/users/:id?
/tweets/:id(\d+)
/files/*/cat.jpg
/files-*
We added the dependency on path-to-regexp in v4 to enable more advanced pattern matching. In v6 we are using a simpler syntax that allows us to predictably parse the path for ranking purposes. It also means we can stop depending on path-to-regexp, which is nice for bundle size.
If you were using any of path-to-regexp's more advanced syntax, you'll have to remove it and simplify your route paths. If you were using the RegExp syntax to do URL param validation (e.g. to ensure an id is all numeric characters) please know that we plan to add some more advanced param validation in v6 at some point. For now, you'll need to move that logic to the component the route renders, and let it branch its rendered tree after you parse the params.
If you were using <Route sensitive> you should move it to its containing <Routes caseSensitive> prop. Either all routes in a <Routes> element are case-sensitive or they are not.
One other thing to notice is that all path matching in v6 ignores the trailing slash on the URL. In fact, <Route strict> has been removed and has no effect in v6. This does not mean that you can't use trailing slashes if you need to. Your app can decide to use trailing slashes or not, you just can't render two different UIs client-side at <Route path="edit"> and <Route path="edit/">. You can still render two different UIs at those URLs (though we wouldn't recommend it), but you'll have to do it server-side.
<Link to> valuesIn v5, a <Link to> value that does not begin with / was ambiguous; it depends on what the current URL is. For example, if the current URL is /users, a v5 <Link to="me"> would render a <a href="/me">. However, if the current URL has a trailing slash, like /users/, the same <Link to="me"> would render <a href="/users/me">. This makes it difficult to predict how links will behave, so in v5 we recommended that you build links from the root URL (using match.url) and not use relative <Link to> values.
React Router v6 fixes this ambiguity. In v6, a <Link to="me"> will always render the same <a href>, regardless of the current URL.
For example, a <Link to="me"> that is rendered inside a <Route path="users"> will always render a link to /users/me, regardless of whether or not the current URL has a trailing slash.
When you'd like to link back "up" to parent routes, use a leading .. segment in your <Link to> value, similar to what you'd do in a <a href>.
function App() {
return (
<Routes>
<Route path="users" element={<Users />}>
<Route path=":id" element={<UserProfile />} />
</Route>
</Routes>
);
}
function Users() {
return (
<div>
<h2>
{/* This links to /users - the current route */}
<Link to=".">Users</Link>
</h2>
<ul>
{users.map((user) => (
<li>
{/* This links to /users/:id - the child route */}
<Link to={user.id}>{user.name}</Link>
</li>
))}
</ul>
</div>
);
}
function UserProfile() {
return (
<div>
<h2>
{/* This links to /users - the parent route */}
<Link to="..">All Users</Link>
</h2>
<h2>
{/* This links to /users/:id - the current route */}
<Link to=".">User Profile</Link>
</h2>
<h2>
{/* This links to /users/mj - a "sibling" route */}
<Link to="../mj">MJ</Link>
</h2>
</div>
);
}
It may help to think about the current URL as if it were a directory path on the filesystem and <Link to> like the cd command line utility.
// If your routes look like this
<Route path="app">
<Route path="dashboard">
<Route path="stats" />
</Route>
</Route>
// and the current URL is /app/dashboard (with or without
// a trailing slash)
<Link to="stats"> => <a href="/app/dashboard/stats">
<Link to="../stats"> => <a href="/app/stats">
<Link to="../../stats"> => <a href="/stats">
<Link to="../../../stats"> => <a href="/stats">
// On the command line, if the current directory is /app/dashboard
cd stats # pwd is /app/dashboard/stats
cd ../stats # pwd is /app/stats
cd ../../stats # pwd is /stats
cd ../../../stats # pwd is /stats
Note: The decision to ignore trailing slashes while matching and creating relative paths was not taken lightly by our team. We consulted with a number of our friends and clients (who are also our friends!) about it. We found that most of us don't even understand how plain HTML relative links are handled with the trailing slash. Most people guessed it worked like cd on the command line (it does not). Also, HTML relative links don't have the concept of nested routes, they only worked on the URL, so we had to blaze our own trail here a bit. @reach/router set this precedent and it has worked out well for a couple of years.
In addition to ignoring trailing slashes in the current URL, it is important to note that <Link to=".."> will not always behave like <a href=".."> when your <Route path> matches more than one segment of the URL. Instead of removing just one segment of the URL, it will resolve based upon the parent route's path, essentially removing all path segments specified by that route.
function App() {
return (
<Routes>
<Route path="users">
<Route
path=":id/messages"
element={
// This links to /users
<Link to=".." />
}
/>
</Route>
</Routes>
);
}
This may seem like an odd choice, to make .. operate on routes instead of URL segments, but it's a huge help when working with * routes where an indeterminate number of segments may be matched by the *. In these scenarios, a single .. segment in your <Link to> value can essentially remove anything matched by the *, which lets you create more predictable links in * routes.
function App() {
return (
<Routes>
<Route path=":userId">
<Route path="messages" element={<UserMessages />} />
<Route
path="files/*"
element={
// This links to /:userId/messages, no matter
// how many segments were matched by the *
<Link to="../messages" />
}
/>
</Route>
</Routes>
);
}
useRoutes instead of react-router-configAll of the functionality from v5's react-router-config package has moved into core in v6. If you prefer/need to define your routes as JavaScript objects instead of using React elements, you're going to love this.
function App() {
let element = useRoutes([
// These are the same as the props you provide to <Route>
{ path: "/", element: <Home /> },
{ path: "dashboard", element: <Dashboard /> },
{
path: "invoices",
element: <Invoices />,
// Nested routes use a children property, which is also
// the same as <Route>
children: [
{ path: ":id", element: <Invoice /> },
{ path: "sent", element: <SentInvoices /> },
],
},
// Not found routes work as you'd expect
{ path: "*", element: <NotFound /> },
]);
// The returned element will render the entire element
// hierarchy with all the appropriate context it needs
return element;
}
Routes defined in this way follow all of the same semantics as <Routes>. In fact, <Routes> is really just a wrapper around useRoutes.
We encourage you to give both <Routes> and useRoutes a shot and decide for yourself which one you prefer to use. Honestly, we like and use them both.
If you had cooked up some of your own logic around data fetching and rendering server-side, we have a low-level matchRoutes function available as well similar to the one we had in react-router-config.
useNavigate instead of useHistoryReact Router v6 introduces a new navigation API that is synonymous with <Link> and provides better compatibility with suspense-enabled apps. We include both imperative and declarative versions of this API depending on your style and needs.
// This is a React Router v5 app
import { useHistory } from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
let history = useHistory();
function handleClick() {
history.push("/home");
}
return (
<div>
<button onClick={handleClick}>go home</button>
</div>
);
}
In v6, this app should be rewritten to use the navigate API. Most of the time this means changing useHistory to useNavigate and changing the history.push or history.replace callsite.
// This is a React Router v6 app
import { useNavigate } from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
let navigate = useNavigate();
function handleClick() {
navigate("/home");
}
return (
<div>
<button onClick={handleClick}>go home</button>
</div>
);
}
If you need to replace the current location instead of push a new one onto the history stack, use navigate(to, { replace: true }). If you need state, use navigate(to, { state }). You can think of the first argument to navigate as your <Link to> and the other arguments as the replace and state props. The Link component in v6 accepts state as a separate prop instead of receiving it as part of the object passed to to so you'll need to update your Link components if they are using state:
import { Link } from "react-router-dom";
// Change this:
<Link to={{ pathname: "/home", state: state }} />
// to this:
<Link to="/home" state={state} />
If you prefer to use a declarative API for navigation (ala v5's Redirect component), v6 provides a Navigate component. Use it like:
import { Navigate } from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
return <Navigate to="/home" replace state={state} />;
}
Note: Be aware that the v5 <Redirect /> uses replace logic by default (you may change it via push prop), on the other hand, the v6 <Navigate /> uses push logic by default and you may change it via replace prop.
// Change this:
<Redirect to="about" />
<Redirect to="home" push />
// to this:
<Navigate to="about" replace />
<Navigate to="home" />
If you're currently using go, goBack or goForward from useHistory to navigate backwards and forwards, you should also replace these with navigate with a numerical argument indicating where to move the pointer in the history stack. For example, here is some code using v5's useHistory hook:
// This is a React Router v5 app
import { useHistory } from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
const { go, goBack, goForward } = useHistory();
return (
<>
<button onClick={() => go(-2)}>
Go 2 pages back
</button>
<button onClick={goBack}>Go back</button>
<button onClick={goForward}>Go forward</button>
<button onClick={() => go(2)}>
Go 2 pages forward
</button>
</>
);
}
Here is the equivalent app with v6:
// This is a React Router v6 app
import { useNavigate } from "react-router-dom";
function App() {
const navigate = useNavigate();
return (
<>
<button onClick={() => navigate(-2)}>
Go 2 pages back
</button>
<button onClick={() => navigate(-1)}>Go back</button>
<button onClick={() => navigate(1)}>
Go forward
</button>
<button onClick={() => navigate(2)}>
Go 2 pages forward
</button>
</>
);
}
Again, one of the main reasons we are moving from using the history API directly to the navigate API is to provide better compatibility with React suspense. React Router v6 uses the useNavigation hook at the root of your component hierarchy. This lets us provide a smoother experience when user interaction needs to interrupt a pending route navigation, for example when they click a link to another route while a previously-clicked link is still loading. The navigate API is aware of the internal pending navigation state and will do a REPLACE instead of a PUSH onto the history stack, so the user doesn't end up with pages in their history that never actually loaded.
Note: The <Redirect> element from v5 is no longer supported as part of your route config (inside a <Routes>). This is due to upcoming changes in React that make it unsafe to alter the state of the router during the initial render. If you need to redirect immediately, you can either a) do it on your server (probably the best solution) or b) render a <Navigate> element in your route component. However, recognize that the navigation will happen in a useEffect.
Aside from suspense compatibility, navigate, like Link, supports relative navigation. For example:
// assuming we are at `/stuff`
function SomeForm() {
let navigate = useNavigate();
return (
<form
onSubmit={async (event) => {
let newRecord = await saveDataFromForm(
event.target
);
// you can build up the URL yourself
navigate(`/stuff/${newRecord.id}`);
// or navigate relative, just like Link
navigate(`${newRecord.id}`);
}}
>
{/* ... */}
</form>
);
}
<Link> component prop<Link> no longer supports the component prop for overriding the returned anchor tag. There are a few reasons for this.
First of all, a <Link> should pretty much always render an <a>. If yours does not, there's a good chance your app has some serious accessibility and usability problems, and that's no good. The browsers give us a lot of nice usability features with <a> and we want your users to get those for free!
That being said, maybe your app uses a CSS-in-JS library, or maybe you have a custom, fancy link component already in your design system that you'd like to render instead. The component prop may have worked well enough in a world before hooks, but now you can create your very own accessible Link component with just a few of our hooks:
import { FancyPantsLink } from "@fancy-pants/design-system";
import {
useHref,
useLinkClickHandler,
} from "react-router-dom";
const Link = React.forwardRef(
(
{
onClick,
replace = false,
state,
target,
to,
...rest
},
ref
) => {
let href = useHref(to);
let handleClick = useLinkClickHandler(to, {
replace,
state,
target,
});
return (
<FancyPantsLink
{...rest}
href={href}
onClick={(event) => {
onClick?.(event);
if (!event.defaultPrevented) {
handleClick(event);
}
}}
ref={ref}
target={target}
/>
);
}
);
If you're using react-router-native, we provide useLinkPressHandler that works basically the same way. Just call that hook's returned function in your Link's onPress handler and you're all set.
<NavLink exact> to <NavLink end>This is a simple renaming of a prop to better align with the common practices of other libraries in the React ecosystem.
activeClassName and activeStyle props from <NavLink />As of v6.0.0-beta.3, the activeClassName and activeStyle props have been removed from NavLinkProps. Instead, you can pass a function to either style or className that will allow you to customize the inline styling or the class string based on the component's active state.
<NavLink
to="/messages"
- style={{ color: 'blue' }}
- activeStyle={{ color: 'green' }}
+ style={({ isActive }) => ({ color: isActive ? 'green' : 'blue' })}
>
Messages
</NavLink>
<NavLink
to="/messages"
- className="nav-link"
- activeClassName="activated"
+ className={({ isActive }) => "nav-link" + (isActive ? " activated" : "")}
>
Messages
</NavLink>
If you prefer to keep the v5 props, you can create your own <NavLink /> as a wrapper component for a smoother upgrade path.
import * as React from "react";
import { NavLink as BaseNavLink } from "react-router-dom";
const NavLink = React.forwardRef(
({ activeClassName, activeStyle, ...props }, ref) => {
return (
<BaseNavLink
ref={ref}
{...props}
className={({ isActive }) =>
[
props.className,
isActive ? activeClassName : null,
]
.filter(Boolean)
.join(" ")
}
style={({ isActive }) => ({
...props.style,
...(isActive ? activeStyle : null),
})}
/>
);
}
);
StaticRouter from react-router-dom/serverThe StaticRouter component has moved into a new bundle: react-router-dom/server.
// change
import { StaticRouter } from "react-router-dom";
// to
import { StaticRouter } from "react-router-dom/server";
This change was made both to follow more closely the convention established by the react-dom package and to help users understand better what a <StaticRouter> is for and when it should be used (on the server).
useRouteMatch with useMatchuseMatch is very similar to v5's useRouteMatch, with a few key differences:
useRouteMatch({ strict }) is now useMatch({ end })useRouteMatch({ sensitive }) is now useMatch({ caseSensitive })To see the exact API of the new useMatch hook and its type declaration, check out our API Reference.
<Prompt> is not currently supported<Prompt> from v5 (along with usePrompt and useBlocker from the v6 betas) are not included in the current released version of v6. We decided we'd rather ship with what we have than take even more time to nail down a feature that isn't fully baked. We will absolutely be working on adding this back in to v6 at some point in the near future, but not for our first stable release of 6.x.
Despite our best attempts at being thorough, it's very likely that we missed something. If you follow this upgrade guide and find that to be the case, please let us know. We are happy to help you figure out what to do with your v5 code to be able to upgrade and take advantage of all of the cool stuff in v6.
Good luck 🤘