These tests were registering new components after the application had
been bootstrapped, which is not a valid use case for synchronous routes
in Angular 1.
In particular it was registering the "root" component, which caused the
`$rootRouter` to blow up, when it was instantiated, pointing to a root
component that did not yet exist.
The current router is passed to the current component via a binding.
To indicate that this is an angular provided object, this commit
renames the binding to `$router`.
BREAKING CHANGE:
The recently added binding of the current router to the current component
has been renamed from `router` to `$router`.
So now the recommended set up for your bindings in your routed component
is:
```js
{
...
bindings: {
$router: '<'
}
}
```
The current router is passed to the current component via a binding.
To indicate that this is an angular provided object, this commit
renames the binding to `$router`.
BREAKING CHANGE:
The recently added binding of the current router to the current component
has been renamed from `router` to `$router`.
So now the recommended set up for your bindings in your routed component
is:
```js
{
...
bindings: {
$router: '<'
}
}
```
The singleton service that represents the top level router was called
`$router` but this is confusing since there are actually lots of routers,
which depend upon where you are in the DOM. This is similar to the situation
with scopes.
This commit clarifies this singleton by renaming it to `$rootRouter`.
BREAKING CHANGE:
The `$router` injectable service has been renamed to `$rootRouter`
The current router is passed to the current component via a binding.
To indicate that this is an angular provided object, this commit
renames the binding to `$router`.
BREAKING CHANGE:
The recently added binding of the current router to the current component
has been renamed from `router` to `$router`.
So now the recommended set up for your bindings in your routed component
is:
```js
{
...
bindings: {
$router: '<'
}
}
```
Peter Bacon Darwin
Brandon Roberts