Fix unnamed routes when views are disabled (with original code formatting)

[cima-alfa]

This PR fixes additional unnamed routes, such as login and register, when views are disabled.
It also fixes the issue with breadcrumbs potentially not working when GET routes don't have a name. (#368 (comment))

In the current state, routes like login and register have to be hardcoded since they don't have names when views are disabled.

[taylorotwell]

I'm finding this PR a bit confusing. Why are we only naming routes when views are disabled? 😅

[cima-alfa]

I am using Ziggy JS to use Laravel’s named routes in my NextJS frontend. This allows me not having to hardcode the routes in the Frontend part. Login, register and some other routes don’t have names (others do) so I am forced to hardcode only those few routes.

Edit: For example right now in the Frontend part I have to hardcode the entire fetch url like this await fetch(“https://domain.tld/login”, ...) instead of simply using await fetch(route(“login”), ...) which would return the same thing.

Edit 2: We are not naming routes only when not using views. Names while using views are still working. We are just adding names to the post routes in case views are disabled.

Right now in the code you can see that the login, register and other affected routes are getting names on their GET definitions. When views are disabled, these never ger defined. Therefore the post routes remain unnamed.
If you are wondering why not just add the names to the post routes instead of their get counterparts, you can refer to the comment linked in the original post.