Respond to architectural question about shiny.router adoption

[Copilot]

Addressed comment asking whether to refactor the custom URL state management implementation to use the shiny.router package instead.

Analysis provided:

• Assessed trade-offs between custom solution (438 lines, 159 tests) vs shiny.router dependency
• Identified that 73% of URLStateManager (state serialization, defaults, formatting) would remain regardless
• Evaluated refactoring cost: complete UI rewrite from navbarPage to router_ui, modal overlay redesign, navigation observer changes
• Considered dependency risk vs benefit (mainly cleaner URL primitives, which current solution already handles)

Recommendation:
Maintain current custom implementation. The investment in tests and R6 architecture is sound. Only reconsider if specific pain points emerge that shiny.router directly addresses.

---

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.