Nice. Could you add an adapt test for this?

I think there is still a difference between the Docs and the implementation

From the doc: /foo is more specific than /foo*

but if we have a caddy config like:

:9991 {
    route /foo* {
    }
    route /fob* {
    }
    route /foo {
    }
}

the result of adapt will be:

"routes": [
  {
	  "match": [
		  {
			  "path": [
				  "/foo*"
			  ]
		  }
	  ],
	  "handle": [
		  {
			  "handler": "subroute"
		  }
	  ]
  },
  {
	  "match": [
		  {
			  "path": [
				  "/fob*"
			  ]
		  }
	  ],
	  "handle": [
		  {
			  "handler": "subroute"
		  }
	  ]
  },
  {
	  "match": [
		  {
			  "path": [
				  "/foo"
			  ]
		  }
	  ],
	  "handle": [
		  {
			  "handler": "subroute"
		  }
	  ]
  }
]

so here we can see that the result is /foo* is more specific than /foo

Right, /foo should come first.

It's now fixed by ordering routes lexically if the paths have the same length.

@Hellio404 Want to give it one more try and then we can merge it?

Thank you very much @WeidiDeng !!

@mholt I did few tests now it is working as expected
Thank you @WeidiDeng

I'd still like an adapt test to cover this to make sure we don't break it again in the future

Yeah that'd probably be good. It's subtle code.