# Replacing existing file mount with RouteGroup

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/replacing-existing-file-mount-with-routegroup/63688>\
**Category:** Module Development\
**Tags:** perspective\
**Created:** [September 1, 2022, 5:02pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/replacing-existing-file-mount-with-routegroup/63688 "2022-09-01T17:02:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kgamble](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kgamble/32/8019_2.png) [@kgamble](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kgamble)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 2022, 5:02pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/replacing-existing-file-mount-with-routegroup/63688/1 "2022-09-01T17:02:36Z")

</div>

Branching off of [this thread on co-branding](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/new-feature-ignition-perspective-co-branding/62241/6)

I was testing some hacky things out in trying to customize the username and password entry view that is currently provided the `co-branding.css` file directly, and doesn’t implement theming the way that the other sign in views do. What this means, is you can’t customize that view in the same way you can the rest, only the provided (and supported) colors.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/a/0/a0826831a3d9f13ec526b2ad12276123b3cebc6a.jpeg)

Disclaimer: I am aware this is likely unsupported behavior, however I have become curious now after the amount of effort I have put in, and Im just innately curious how to solve this challenge. lol

In my testing I see that its provided the `css` file directly from `/data/co-branding/co-branding.css`. So my first attempt was to replace the [route group](https://files.inductiveautomation.com/sdk/javadoc/ignition81/8.1.1/com/inductiveautomation/ignition/gateway/dataroutes/RouteGroup.html) mounted, by creating a module with the id of `co-branding` and then mounting a new file at `/co-branding.css`.

It seems that if I set the module id to something different like `co-brandings` then everything works as expected, but the `co-branding` route is explicitly blocked from creating a new route (Even with a different file name i.e. `/hello-world`.)

Is there something implicitly blocking the replacement of this file in that route group and my efforts are futile? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case, as like I said, likely unsupported territory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 2022, 7:24pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/replacing-existing-file-mount-with-routegroup/63688/2 "2022-09-01T19:24:41Z")

</div>

Futile.

A single servlet is attached to a single route at the module id level. There’s no co-existence possible unless the one servlet itself has a hook for that.

Not that you can’t override what you wish if you deploy behind nginx or a similar reverse proxy.