I'm about to make some changes to the CacheNode data structure, and
before I add more complexity, I noticed an opportunity to remove some —
the `status` field isn't logically necessary:
- The `DATA_FETCH` and `LAZY_INITIALIZED` states are already treated as
equivalent; in either case, they will cause the render to suspend during
render, trigger a lazy data fetch (if one hasn't been triggered
already), and then update the router with the result of the response.
- `subTreeData` is null if and only if the node is in the `DATA_FETCH`
or `LAZY_INITIALIZED` states, and it always causes the render to
suspend. So rather than check if the status is one of those, we can
check if `subTreeData` is null.
The most important changes are to CacheNode type in
app-router-context.shared-runtime and the lazy fetching logic in
LayoutRouter. Everything else in the diff is related to deleting the
`status` field wherever a CacheNode is referenced, like in the reducer
unit tests.
Closes NEXT-1842
Before PPR, the way instant navigations work in Next.js is we prefetch
everything up to the first route segment that defines a loading.js
boundary. The rest of the tree is defered until the actual navigation.
It does not take into account whether the data is dynamic — even if the
tree is completely static, it will still defer everything inside the
loading boundary.
The approach with PPR is different — we prefetch as deeply as possible,
and only defer when dynamic data is accessed. If so, we only defer the
nearest parent Suspense boundary of the dynamic data access, regardless
of whether the boundary is defined by loading.js or a normal <Suspense>
component in userspace.
This PR removes the partial behavior of loading.js when the PPR flag is
enabled. In effect, loading.js now acts like a regular Suspense boundary
with no additional special behavior.
Note that in practice this usually means we'll end up prefetching more
than we were before PPR, which may or may not be considered a
performance regression by some apps. The plan is to address this before
General Availability of PPR by introducing granular per-segment
fetching, so we can reuse as much of the tree as possible during both
prefetches and dynamic navigations. But during the beta period, we
should be clear about this trade off in our communications.
## Testing strategy
While I was writing a test, I noticed that it's currently pretty
difficult to test all the scenarios that PPR is designed to handle, so I
gave special attention to setting up a testing strategy that I hope will
make this easier going forward. The overall pattern is based on how
we've been testing concurrent rendering features in the React repo for
many years:
- In the e2e test, spin up an HTTP server for responding to requests
sent by the test app. This simulates the data service that would be used
in a real Next.js application, whether it's direct db access, an ORM, or
a higher-level data access layer. The e2e test can observe when
individual requests are received, and control the timing of when the
data is fulfilled, without needing to mock any lower level I/O. (We're
already using a similar pattern to [test fetch
deduping](a3616d33ed/test/e2e/app-dir/app-fetch-deduping/app-fetch-deduping.test.ts (L8-L29)).)
- Each time a request is received, write to an event log. Then assert on
the result of the log at different points throughout the test. This
helps catch subtle mistakes where the order of events is not expected,
or the same event happens more than it should.
(I wrote some test helpers, but to avoid early abstraction, I've
intentionally not moved them into a separate module.)
Closes NEXT-1779
### What?
switch turbopack to use a single client components entrypoint for all
client components on a page for development. This aligns it with the
webpack behavior.
### Why?
compiling a separate entrypoint for every client component is pretty
expensive in regards of compilation, chunking, code generation, file
writing and number of requests.
### Turbopack Changes
* https://github.com/vercel/turbo/pull/6713 <!-- Tobias Koppers - use
real emojis -->
* https://github.com/vercel/turbo/pull/6728 <!-- Tobias Koppers - fix
order of reverse topologic iteration -->
Closes PACK-2115
<!-- Thanks for opening a PR! Your contribution is much appreciated.
To make sure your PR is handled as smoothly as possible we request that
you follow the checklist sections below.
Choose the right checklist for the change(s) that you're making:
## For Contributors
### Fixing a bug
- Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- Tests added. See:
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
### Adding a feature
- Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the feature
request has been accepted for implementation before opening a PR. (A
discussion must be opened, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/new?category=ideas)
- Related issues/discussions are linked using `fixes #number`
- e2e tests added
(https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs)
- Documentation added
- Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
## For Maintainers
- Minimal description (aim for explaining to someone not on the team to
understand the PR)
- When linking to a Slack thread, you might want to share details of the
conclusion
- Link both the Linear (Fixes NEXT-xxx) and the GitHub issues
- Add review comments if necessary to explain to the reviewer the logic
behind a change
### What?
### Why?
### How?
Closes NEXT-
Fixes#58087
-->
fixes#58087
Currently in Next 14, everyone has fullURL flag turned to true, this PR
reverts the condition.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jiachi Liu <inbox@huozhi.im>
### What?
While scrolled on a page, and when following a link to a new page and
clicking the browser back button or using `router.back()`, the scroll
position would sometimes restore scroll to the incorrect spot (in the
case of the test added in this PR, it'd scroll you back to the top of
the list)
### Why?
The refactor in #56497 changed the way router actions are processed:
specifically, all actions were assumed to be async, even if they could
be handled synchronously. For most actions this is fine, as most are
currently async. However, `ACTION_RESTORE` (triggered when the
`popstate` event occurs) isn't async, and introducing a small amount of
delay in the handling of this action can cause the browser to not
properly restore the scroll position
### How?
This special-cases `ACTION_RESTORE` to synchronously process the action
and call `setState` when it's received, rather than creating a promise.
To consistently reproduce this behavior, I added an option to our
browser interface that'll allow us to programmatically trigger a CPU
slowdown.
h/t to @alvarlagerlof for isolating the offending commit and sharing a
minimal reproduction.
Closes NEXT-1819
Likely addresses #58899 but the reproduction was too complex to verify.
## What?
- Add support for `experimental.externalDir` -- Was already supported,
just makes Turbopack not fail on that config option
- Skipped `with-babel` test because it tests Babel
- Skipped `swc-warnings` test because it tests Babel
- Skipped `config-resolve-alias` as it tests webpack config
- Skipped `undefined-webpack-config` as it tests webpack config
<!-- Thanks for opening a PR! Your contribution is much appreciated.
To make sure your PR is handled as smoothly as possible we request that
you follow the checklist sections below.
Choose the right checklist for the change(s) that you're making:
## For Contributors
### Improving Documentation
- Run `pnpm prettier-fix` to fix formatting issues before opening the
PR.
- Read the Docs Contribution Guide to ensure your contribution follows
the docs guidelines:
https://nextjs.org/docs/community/contribution-guide
### Adding or Updating Examples
- The "examples guidelines" are followed from our contributing doc
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/examples/adding-examples.md
- Make sure the linting passes by running `pnpm build && pnpm lint`. See
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/repository/linting.md
### Fixing a bug
- Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- Tests added. See:
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
### Adding a feature
- Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the feature
request has been accepted for implementation before opening a PR. (A
discussion must be opened, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/new?category=ideas)
- Related issues/discussions are linked using `fixes #number`
- e2e tests added
(https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs)
- Documentation added
- Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
## For Maintainers
- Minimal description (aim for explaining to someone not on the team to
understand the PR)
- When linking to a Slack thread, you might want to share details of the
conclusion
- Link both the Linear (Fixes NEXT-xxx) and the GitHub issues
- Add review comments if necessary to explain to the reviewer the logic
behind a change
### What?
### Why?
### How?
Closes NEXT-
Fixes #
-->
Closes NEXT-1817
### What?
Visiting an edge catch-all route incorrectly truncates multiple
parameters
### Why?
The params are currently coerced into a `ParsedURLQuery`-like format by
calling `Object.fromEntries` on `searchParams`, but this doesn't
consider multiple param values assigned to the same key
### How?
Rather than use `fromEntries`, this uses an existing util to get the
path into `ParsedURLQuery` format.
Closes NEXT-1814
Fixes#59333
### What?
When running a
[multi-zone](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/tree/canary/examples/with-zones)
app in dev, app pages would infinitely reload
### Why?
The HMR upgrade request would fail and get caught into a retry loop. In
the multi-zone case, they fail because the upgrade request would be sent
again for a request that had already been upgraded. This resulted in a
"server.handleUpgrade() was called more than once with the same socket"
error, causing the upgrade request to fail.
Every time a retry occurred, the page would trigger a full refresh since
certain HMR errors cause the browser to reload.
### How?
This ensures the upgrade handler only responds to requests that match
the configured basePath.
Closes NEXT-1797
Fixes#59161Fixes#56615Fixes#54454
This makes some critical modifications to the app render pipeline when
PPR has been enabled for pages with segments defining:
```js
export const dynamic = "force-dynamic"
```
Importantly, it no longer modifies the revalidation time to zero for
those pages, and now falls back to the provided default revalidation
time. When static render occurs, if the page being rendered has a
segment config defining `dynamic === "force-dynamic"`, then it will
postpone at the root of the component tree. This ensures that no render
code is executed for the page, as the entirety of the tree will have
postponed. This fixes the bug where the flight prefetch wasn't generated
correctly as well.
Most of them can now be handled by `optimizePackageImports` as I
manually tested them locally. The main benefit is that structural
updates from these libs won't affect our internal configurations
anymore, as they're automatic with the new approach. The little downside
is that the automatic way is a bit slower than the `modularizeImports`
config as it needs to do extra analyzation. But overall, this is a good
direction.
Depends on #59254.
### What?
Using an interception marker next to a dynamic segment does not behave
properly when deployed to Vercel
### Why?
The named route regex that gets created is not accounting for the
interception marker, which is causing the non-intercepted route to match
the intercepted serverless function.
### How?
This factors in the interception marker when building the named route
regex so that the non-intercepted route regex properly matches when
loading the non-intercepted page.
Deployment verified here: https://test-intercept-mu.vercel.app/
Closes NEXT-1786
Fixes#54650
Fixes#57624. The recent issue was an unexpected side effect caused by
305bb01506,
which only affects specific packages like `@mui/material`.
The problem was that the entry file of `@mui/material` has `"use
client"` at top, which affects the compilation result to output
reference info only (when on the RSC layer), instead of keeping the
original export statements. And the fix here is to ignore all layer info
and React specific transforms here, as barrel optimization isn't related
to all these framework features at all. To keep all directives
unchanged, the SWC transform needs to parse and pass that info to the
Webpack loader.
This PR adds a test to ensure that `@mui/material` is working as
expected (less than 1500 modules compiled). Without this feature it'll
be ~2400 modules.
Closes NEXT-1793, closes NEXT-1762.
Adds process.env.__NEXT_PPR as static flag that it gets inlined by
DefinePlugin during build.
This matches what we do for other experiments, but I do wonder, why do
we bother with process.env at all instead of a global __NEXT_PPR symbol?
I'll leave that for later discussion.
Closes NEXT-1792
Similar in spirit to #58938.
The app router reducer state used to be managed by useReducer, so it was
written to be resilient to rebasing — the same action may be processed
multiple times. Now that we've lifted the reducer outside of React
(#56497), each action runs only a single time. So we can simplify some
of the logic.
The purpose of the `mutable` field was so that if an action is processed
multiple times, state could be reused between each run; for example, to
prevent redundant network fetches. Now that this scenario can no longer
happen, we can remove it.
I had to update some of the unit tests in navigate-reducer because they
were written with the assumption that the reducer was called multiple
times. As far as I can tell, most of this behavior is covered by e2e
tests anyway, so I don't think it's too risky.
Closes NEXT-1782
This resolves an issue introduced in #52361 where `shouldOmit` is
overwritten based on if it is a directory or not without considering
include conditions.
In an environment where the the application being built is orchestrated
and managed by bazel, all files are symbolic links and thus without this
the file includes predicate checks aren't considered - and the build
fails under certain conditions.
<!-- Thanks for opening a PR! Your contribution is much appreciated.
To make sure your PR is handled as smoothly as possible we request that
you follow the checklist sections below.
Choose the right checklist for the change(s) that you're making:
## For Contributors
### Improving Documentation
- Run `pnpm prettier-fix` to fix formatting issues before opening the
PR.
- Read the Docs Contribution Guide to ensure your contribution follows
the docs guidelines:
https://nextjs.org/docs/community/contribution-guide
### Adding or Updating Examples
- The "examples guidelines" are followed from our contributing doc
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/examples/adding-examples.md
- Make sure the linting passes by running `pnpm build && pnpm lint`. See
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/repository/linting.md
### Fixing a bug
- Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- Tests added. See:
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
### Adding a feature
- Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the feature
request has been accepted for implementation before opening a PR. (A
discussion must be opened, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/new?category=ideas)
- Related issues/discussions are linked using `fixes #number`
- e2e tests added
(https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs)
- Documentation added
- Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
## For Maintainers
- Minimal description (aim for explaining to someone not on the team to
understand the PR)
- When linking to a Slack thread, you might want to share details of the
conclusion
- Link both the Linear (Fixes NEXT-xxx) and the GitHub issues
- Add review comments if necessary to explain to the reviewer the logic
behind a change
### What?
### Why?
### How?
Closes NEXT-
Fixes #
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Shu Ding <g@shud.in>
This ensures we use the correct `srcPathname` in minimal mode so that we
can normalize the URL and generate the correct `ssgCacheKey` which is
used for request caching/de-duping.
We aren't able to add a reliable test case for this as it is a race
condition within a second of a previous request although this was
verified against a stress test repro here
https://overlapping-segments-h1455lwvk-vtest314-ijjk-testing.vercel.app/repro/tutorials/demo
This behavior seems to have regressed in
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/45716
Closes NEXT-1777
### What?
When using a server action on an intercepted route, when submitting that
action, you'd expect it to correspond with the page you're currently on.
However if you have route interception set up, and you load the page
rather than the intercepted page, submitting the action would `POST` to
the intercepted page. This would result in a 404 error because the
action ID you're attempting to submit wouldn't be found on the requested
page.
### Why?
Interception routes rely on the `Next-Url` request header to determine
if an interception should occur via a rewrite. However, server actions
are submitted with this header as well, so the rewrite will be applied
to the `POST` request corresponding with a non-existent action, or an
action on the intercepted page.
### How?
When loading a page that has an intercepted route, `nextUrl` should be
consistent with URL derived from the flight router state tree. But when
an interception occurs via navigation, `nextUrl` will now deviate. I'm
using this to determine whether or not `Next-Url` should be forwarded
along in the `POST` request.
Closes NEXT-1436
Fixes#52591Fixes#49934
### What?
When using rewrites, in the scenario where a user visits an intercepted
route, reloads the page, goes back, and then revisits the same route, we
serve the page rather than the intercepted route.
### Why?
#59094 fixed the case where `ACTION_RESTORE` was not restoring `nextUrl`
properly. However there's a separate issue where when the `SERVER_PATCH`
action comes in, `handleMutable` attempts to compute `nextUrl` by
comparing the patched tree with the current tree. In the case of the
popstate event, both trees are the same, so the logic is currently
configured to fallback to `canonicalUrl`, which is not the correct URL
to use in the case of rewrites.
### How?
If the computed changed path is null, we should only fallback to using
`canonicalUrl` if we don't have a valid `nextUrl` that we can use.
Closes NEXT-1747
Fixes#56072
## What?
While investigating a Turbopack bug we noticed that middleware would be
skipped in development if there was an error during compilation that
caused `ensurePage` to throw. This updates the logic to not catch that
throw and instead make it bubble up correctly.
<!-- Thanks for opening a PR! Your contribution is much appreciated.
To make sure your PR is handled as smoothly as possible we request that
you follow the checklist sections below.
Choose the right checklist for the change(s) that you're making:
## For Contributors
### Improving Documentation
- Run `pnpm prettier-fix` to fix formatting issues before opening the
PR.
- Read the Docs Contribution Guide to ensure your contribution follows
the docs guidelines:
https://nextjs.org/docs/community/contribution-guide
### Adding or Updating Examples
- The "examples guidelines" are followed from our contributing doc
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/examples/adding-examples.md
- Make sure the linting passes by running `pnpm build && pnpm lint`. See
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/repository/linting.md
### Fixing a bug
- Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- Tests added. See:
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
### Adding a feature
- Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the feature
request has been accepted for implementation before opening a PR. (A
discussion must be opened, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/new?category=ideas)
- Related issues/discussions are linked using `fixes #number`
- e2e tests added
(https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs)
- Documentation added
- Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
- Errors have a helpful link attached, see
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md
## For Maintainers
- Minimal description (aim for explaining to someone not on the team to
understand the PR)
- When linking to a Slack thread, you might want to share details of the
conclusion
- Link both the Linear (Fixes NEXT-xxx) and the GitHub issues
- Add review comments if necessary to explain to the reviewer the logic
behind a change
### What?
### Why?
### How?
Closes NEXT-
Fixes #
-->
**Note**: this is a 1-to-1 copy of #48969 by @danieltott with all the
merge conflicts fixed.
## Checklist
* Fixes https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/48966
* Tests added to
`test/production/app-dir/subresource-integrity/subresource-integrity.test.ts`
## Description
Currently `renderToHTMLOrFlight` in app-render pulls out a nonce value
from a `content-security-policy` header for use in generating script
tags:
e7c9d3c051/packages/next/src/server/app-render/app-render.tsx (L1204)
That misses the ability to use a [content-security-policy-report-only
header](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only).
Many times this is a required step to enabling a CSP - by shipping a CSP
with report-only and collecting reports before actually blocking
resources.
## Changes
* Added ability to check `content-security-policy-report-only` header in
`renderToHTMLOrFlight()`
* Added test to verify `nonce` is correctly applied when
`content-security-policy-report-only` header exists
Co-authored-by: Dan Ott <dan@dtott.com>
Co-authored-by: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
If a manual signal handler is registered, SIGINT and SIGTERM should not
be handled by Next.js. This was already the case in the standalone
server.js but was missing here, rendering the env flag useless.
With this fix, the example given in
https://nextjs.org/docs/pages/building-your-application/deploying#manual-graceful-shutdowns
is working (again).
Fixes#56810.
Co-authored-by: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
When using `experimental.typedRoutes` in conjunction with
`experimental.webpackBuildWorker`, type errors would be erroneously
thrown during build.
This is because the build workers are parallelized between multiple
runtimes (edge, server, client), but the `typedRoutes` is unique to each
`webpackBuild`. The state needs to shared between the different compile
steps for each instance of the types plugin.
This leverages plugin state to keep share the `typedRoutes` state
amongst the different workers.
Closes NEXT-1734
Fixes#58369
This ensures we don't spam build logs with dynamic usage errors or
similar unexpectedly as they can be caught by this worker process
listener but shouldn't be logged.
Closes NEXT-1763
This:
- Sends an hmr sync event so that errors that occur after the initial
hmr connection are sent to the client
- Aligns on `path/to/file.js:line:column` format across error overlay
implementations in the cli and on the web
- Adapts "Module not found" errors from Turbopack to include
Next.js-relevant formatting and documentation links to align with
webpack
Test Plan: Passes 3 tests that were previously failing
Closes PACK-1974
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Koppers <tobias.koppers@googlemail.com>
Co-authored-by: Leah <github.leah@hrmny.sh>
Co-authored-by: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
### What?
When using interception routes & rewrites, on first interception the
router will properly handle the request. But when using the back button
and attempting another interception, it won't work
### Why?
Intercepting routes rely on the accuracy of `nextUrl` -- but when
`ACTION_RESTORE` is dispatched (in the `popstate` event), `nextUrl` is
restored from `url.pathname` rather than the flight router state.
### How?
This uses the `extractPathFromFlightRouterState` util which will
properly handle setting `nextUrl`. This util is also used when creating
the initial router state.
Closes NEXT-1747
Fixes#56072
### What?
When handling a server action, in the non-progressive enhanced case,
React will attempt to parse the request body before verifying if a valid
server action is received. This results in an "Error: Connection Closed"
error being thrown, rather than ignoring the action and failing more
gracefully
### Why?
To support progressive enhancement with form actions, the `actionId`
value is added as a hidden input in the form, so the action ID from the
header shouldn't be verified until determining that we've reached the
non-PE case. ([React
ref](https://github.com/facebook/react/pull/26774)). However, in
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/49187, support was added for a
URL encoded form (which is not currently used, as indicated on the PR).
Despite it not being used for server actions, it's currently possible to
trigger this codepath, ie by calling redirect in an action handler with
a 307/308 status code with some data in the URL. This would result in a
500 error.
### How?
React should not attempt to parse the URL encoded form data until after
we've verified the server action header for the non-PE case.
x-ref NEXT-1733
[Slack
context](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03S8ED1DKM/p1700674895218399?thread_ts=1700060786.749079&cid=C03S8ED1DKM)
### What?
A `redirect` that occurs during a fetch action will get a status code of
200, while the redirection logic is handled client-side.
### Why?
In this scenario, the redirect is handled by the client router, so no
`Location` is set on the action response. However for debugging /
logging purposes, it'd be useful to still return the same status code
used in other cases (see #58885)
### How?
Rather than selectively setting the status to 303 in the non-fetch
action case, this always applies it.
Closes NEXT-1745
If a build time fetch cache is present from a previous build we don't
want to unexpectedly use it when flush to disk is set to false in a
successive build as it can leverage stale data unexpectedly.
x-ref: [slack
thread](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03S8ED1DKM/p1701266754905909)
Closes NEXT-1750
Co-authored-by: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
### What?
Calling `redirect` or `permanentRedirect` with a route handler used by a server action will result in that POST request following the redirect. This could result in unexpected behavior, such as re-submitting an action (in the case where the redirected URL makes use of the same server action).
### Why?
By spec, 307 and 308 status codes will attempt to reuse the original request method & body on the redirected URL.
### How?
In all cases when calling a `redirect` handler inside of an action, we'll return a `303 See Other` response which is a typical status code when redirecting to a success / confirmation page as a result of a POST/PUT.
The other option would be to use 301 / 302 status codes, but since we're already doing a 303 status code [here](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/packages/next/src/server/app-render/action-handler.ts#L603), this aligns the behavior for the route handler case.
Closes NEXT-1733
See also: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/51592#issuecomment-1810212676
[Slack x-ref](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03S8ED1DKM/p1700060786749079)
fixes: #58909
x-ref: #58321, #56472, #56231
Removed the Math.round of age since it can cause stale fetch data to be
considered not stale if the age rounds downwards. (5.49 is rounded to 5)
Note: This most likely also fixes some bugs with
revalidateTag/revalidatePath. Tested some tag/path issues that got fixed
with this change.
I think this is because revalidatetag/path sets [data.revalidatedAt =
Date.now()](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/packages/next/src/server/lib/incremental-cache/file-system-cache.ts#L120)
for file-system-cache. And with the current code that value would
continue to be "not stale" for up to 0.499 ms.
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
Co-authored-by: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
Providing better feedback loop for next bindary.
Some users with old node.js version are seeing `performance` is not defined in #57385, we should check the version first.
For compilation, `performace.mark` will also be compiled after those imports since they're hoisted as ESM. This PR moves performance profiling after the `--help` and `--version` processures and node.js version check. So users can see the "upgrade node.js" hint if the node.js version is too old instead of "performance is not defined"
### What?
When the router action queue receives a bunch of async actions in quick succession, some of those requests are dropped, and as a result, anything observing pending transitions will be stuck in a pending state.
### Why?
When adding items to the action queue, the intended behavior is for new actions to be added to the end of the action queue, to be picked up by `runRemainingActions` once the in-flight action is processed. However, new actions are erroneously overwriting pending actions in the queue rather than appending them, as `actionQueue.last` might have a pending action attached to it.
### How?
This moves the assignment of `actionQueue.last` to always be in `dispatchAction`, rather than the function that processes the action, so that we always have a single spot where `last` is assigned and to prevent it from erroneously omitted/overwritten.
Fixes#59011
### What?
Bump up turbopack which includes url rewrite related improvements. This makes `test/integration/url` test passes.
Note there are some lacking behavior around edge runtime + url behavior, it is being tracked in PACK-2014.
Closes PACK-2051
The rewrite request appear to bypass the `BaseServer` or are executed in
the sandbox. However, these requests have the correct test info in the
headers that can be used instead of the `AsyncLocalStorage`.
