This fixes a case in the PPR navigations implementation where page data
was not being applied.
During a navigation, we compare the route trees of the old and new pages
to determine which layouts are shared. If the segment keys of two
layouts are the same, they are reused.
However, the server doesn't bother to assign segment keys to the leaf
segments (which we refer to as "page" segments) because they are never
part of a shared layout. It assigns all of them a special constant
(`__PAGE__`).
In the PPR implementation, I overlooked this and compared the segment
keys of all segments, including pages, not just shared layouts. So if
the only thing that changed during a navigation was the page data, and
not any parent layout, the client would fail to apply the navigation.
The fix is to add a special case for page segments before comparing
nested layouts. I also moved an existing special case for default pages,
since those are also leaf segments and are conceptually similar.
### Fixing a bug
### What?
Disable 2MB limit for custom incrementalCacheHandler
### Why?
The limit is necessary because `FetchCache` has a 2MB limit, but it
seems there was a miscommunication regarding the key coincidence, where
`fetchCache` is a flag indicating that the method is called from fetch,
rather than indicating that the `FetchCache` Provider is currently being
used.
We do not use Vercel, and as I understand it, we do not have the
opportunity to use this functionality.
In any case, it is more important for us to increase the limits, and in
some cases, using a file storage is even preferable.
### How?
I have created a flag that determines whether the use of `FetchCache` is
possible at least in theory - if no custom provider is passed, and
additionally configured it so that it is not an implementation of
`FetchCache` as a protection against special individuals (*like me :)*).
If everything is fine, I will write proper tests.
Also, I would like to recommend making `FileSystemCache` public (_i.e.
support it as public functionality_) so that it can be imported and
extended or simply used to fix only it.
Fixes#48324 (partially)
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
Fixes#57038
# What?
Added an error message when `generateStaticParams` returns an empty
array with `output:export`.
# Why?
To provide developers with clear feedback when `generateStaticParams` is
not used correctly.
# How?
Modified the condition checks around the use of `generateStaticParams`
to include a check for an empty array and added a corresponding error
message.
---------
Co-authored-by: Steven <steven@ceriously.com>
### What & Why?
When visiting a route that attempts to render a slot with no page & no default, the fallback behavior is to trigger a 404. However this can lead to a confusing development experience for complex parallel routing cases as you might not realize a default is missing, or which slot is causing the error.
Previous issues where this caused confusion:
- https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/51805
- https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/49569
### How?
This is a dev-only modification to track parallel slots that are using the default fallback (aka missing). When the `NotFoundBoundary` is triggered in development mode, this will log a warning about why it 404ed, along with a list of slot(s) that were determined to be missing.
### Future
We should eventually lift this into some sort of dev-only UI to help catch it when not monitoring the browser console (similar to the error overlay). However, this will require some design thought and isn't necessary for the first iteration.
Closes NEXT-1798
## What?
Currently there is a bug in Server Actions when you `fetch` as it uses
the same defaults (caching when not specified) as rendering, this causes
some issues as you want to read your writes in Server Actions.
This change adds the `no-store` default for Server Actions, you can
still override it by specifying `cache: 'force-cache'` for example, but
it defaults to `cache: 'no-store'`.
Fixes NEXT-1926
<!-- 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: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
### What?
get value, issues and diagnostics in a single strongly consistent call
### Why?
Before issues and diagnostics where not received strongly consistent,
which could result in stale data.
### How?
Closes PACK-2194
In fact, this is an issue that has been solved in #52033, but it seems
#52492 introduced it again.
> During development, for fonts created via next/font the file path is
already containing the hash so we can always have them cached. This
fixes the problem of fonts causing FOUC in HMR.
Fixes#50782
---------
Co-authored-by: Tim Neutkens <tim@timneutkens.nl>
Had some spare time and was trying to get more familiar with the
codebase.
Added a few types to `create-next-app` here. Nothing fancy!
---------
Co-authored-by: Steven <steven@ceriously.com>
This commit updates some of the code organization in app-render in
preparation for supporting dynamic RSC repsonses on top of static SSR
responses for PPR. The main change to notice is the separation of
creating the server component renderer which initiates the RSC render
and executes in the RSC layer with the consuming component which lives
in the SSR layer. By organizing the code this way we can later only call
the server render in certain cases, omitting the SSR render entirely.
This is different than just using the generaetFlight pathway because
that pathway serves client navs and does not actually render the same
output that the intial render does.
Closes NEXT-1889
Previously in #58967 we set all the module type as `'es6'` to let swc
parse app router code as ESM and output as ESM due to the incorrect
detection of CJS module by auto-cjs plugin, but this is not accurate
when the external library bundle is CJS. The problem is when swc
compiling modern syntax for example private properties in CJS bundle but
emitted the swc helpers with ESM imports.
We had a auto-cjs swc plugin to determine if the file is using CJS or
not, @kdy1 fixed the bug of it so now we can use the default module
type, and let the plugin to determine its module type, to make sure
we're emitting the right helpers.
Closes NEXT-1942
Based on #60118
Use dynamic import instead of require to load the incremental cache
handled, so when using ESM it will still work.
Updated the tests and merged them into new test suite, include 3 cases
of custom cache definition:
- CJS with `module.exports`
- CJS with `exports.default` with ESM mark
- ESM with `export default`
Closes NEXT-1924
Fixes#58509
The start line of build logging `Creating an optimized production build
...` was logged by spinner, and when all build is finished we stop that
spinner. But the problem is all the logs from a page such as warnings
will be also leaded by it since they interrupted the spinner.
We changed the spinner to a one-line log now that will make the warning
logs more clear and let the page-level build logs print without messed
with app-level build logs.
#### After
```
▲ Next.js 14.0.5-canary.34
Creating an optimized production build ...
⚠ Next.js can't recognize the exported `runtime` field in "/Users/huozhi/workspace/next.js/test/e2e/app-dir/app-edge/app/expo
rt/inherit/page.tsx" as it was not assigned to a string literal.
The default runtime will be used instead.
⚠ Next.js can't recognize the exported `preferredRegion` field in "/Users/huozhi/workspace/next.js/test/e2e/app-dir/app-edge/
app/export/inherit/page.tsx" as it was not assigned to a string literal or an array of string literals.
The default runtime will be used instead.
```
#### Before
```
▲ Next.js 14.0.5-canary.34
Creating an optimized production build ... ⚠ Next.js can't recognize the exported `runtime` field in "/Users/huozhi/worksp
ace/next.js/test/e2e/app-dir/app-edge/app/export/inherit/page.tsx" as it was not assigned to a string literal.
The default runtime will be used instead.
⚠ Next.js can't recognize the exported `preferredRegion` field in "/Users/huozhi/workspace/next.js/test/e2e/app-dir/app-edge/
app/export/inherit/page.tsx" as it was not assigned to a string literal or an array of string literals.
The default runtime will be used instead.
Creating an optimized production build ... ⚠ Next.js can't recognize the exported `runtime` field in "/Users/huozhi/worksp
ace/next.js/test/e2e/app-dir/app-edge/app/export/inherit/page.tsx" as it was not assigned to a string literal.
The default runtime will be used instead.
⚠ Next.js can't recognize the exported `preferredRegion` field in "/Users/huozhi/workspace/next.js/test/e2e/app-dir/app-edge/
app/export/inherit/page.tsx" as it was not assigned to a string literal or an array of string literals.
The default runtime will be used instead.
```
Closes NEXT-1939
Closes NEXT-1947
### What?
Next.js throws a hard `SEGMENT MISMATCH` error when the reducers were
unable to apply the a patch to the router tree from the server response.
### How?
Rather than crashing the router, this will treat segment mismatches as a
MPA navigation, to restore the client router into a working state.
### Test Plan
If there are specific scenarios where Next.js throws this error, it
should most likely be fixed in Next and not in user-land. Since it's not
currently obvious what scenarios will trigger this error, this PR serves
to recover from a mismatch more gracefully and provides some debug
information rather than crashing the application. As such, there's no
easy way to create an E2E test for this and I've instead opted for a
simple unit test.
Closes NEXT-1878
[slack
x-ref](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C017QMYC5FB/p1704214439768469)
[slack
x-ref](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03KAR5DCKC/p1702565978694519)
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
### What?
Make `auto-cjs` pass consider shadowing of `module`, so it can ignore
`module.exports = foo` in nested scopes.
### Why?
It's problematic for many tasks
### How?
Closes PACK-2074
## What?
Always call `createPagesMapping` as it already handles the case when
there are no paths.
Also introduces `PAGE_TYPES` to have a single source of truth for these
types and where they're used. As you can see this replaces a ton of
hardcoded `'app'`, `'pages'`, and `'root'` references.
<!-- 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-1935
## What?
While working on some other refactors I noticed that this check for
duplicate routes is incorrect.
Upon further investigation with @feedthejim we noticed that this check
can be removed altogether as it's already being checked correctly in the
route matcher.
I've moved the test to use `createNextDescribe` and removed the check
for build because it's a dev-only warning.
<!-- 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-1941
## What?
While looking at other refactors I noticed that `entrypoint.name ===
'root'` was checked which is surprising as `root` is not any of the
injected entrypoints.
Also noticed that there's a `root` parameter that refers to the very
first name of App Router, which was the `root` directory instead of
`app` directory. That variable could be removed as it's in scope above.
<!-- 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-1938
## What?
While looking into some refactors for `next build` I noticed that
`NextBuildContext` was used to propagate if instrumentation.js exists or
not, however that information can be inferred by checking if the
entrypoint exists in the compiler. Applied that change.
I've updated the test fixtures to include the `next.config.js` so that
you can run them using `pnpm next`.
<!-- 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-1931
## What
When users specify `"type": "module"` in Next.js app, especially with
`create-next-app`, `Image` component is not working. An error
`Unsupported Server Component type: {...}` is thrown.
## Why
`next/image` API is mixing with a client component as default export and
a named export as server component. But the entry file of the API is
still CJS file, which will import the module as the object. So you'll
get `{ default, unstable_getImageProps }` when you do `import Image from
'next/image'` instead of `Image` component itself, where the CJS module
load all the exports as an object. This is expected behavior for ESM but
breaks the usage.
It only errors when you're using js extensions, if you're using
typescript, it still works. If you're using turbopack, it works in dev
mode.
This is also because webpack can't analyze the exports from CJS module
of that `next/image` entry file. Usually we can assign the default
export to the module itself, then attach other named exports onto it, so
the default export equals the `module.exports` itself. But for
`next/image` since the default export is an client component, doing that
will error with React as you cannot modify the react client reference.
Turbopack doesn't use the same way to analyze the default export, so it
doesn't have this problem.
## How
We create few ESM version of entry files of nextjs APIs, then pick up
them to let app router for bundling, instead of using the `next/<api
name>.js` CJS files. Those ESM entries still point to the `next/dist/..`
CJS files. In this way webpack and directly gets the exports from the
`next/dist/...` files and be aware of the module exports. No more CJS
module wrapping the ESM module, the default and named exports can
preserve correctly.
Fixes#54777
Closes NEXT-1774
Closes NEXT-1879
Closes NEXT-1923
### What?
When handling route interception in two different segments but handled
by the same interception route, the first interception will show the
correct component but attempting the same interception on another
segment will return elements from the first request, not the second.
### Why?
Prefetch cache entries are created from the browser URL. However, route
interception makes use of `nextUrl` to mask the underlying components
that are being fetched from the server to handle the request
Consider the following scenario:
```
app
foo
@modal
(...)post
[id]
bar
@modal
(...post)
[id]
post
[id]
```
If you trigger an interception on `/foo`, your URL is going to be masked
to `/post/1` and keyed as such in the prefetch cache. However, the cache
entry is actually associated with `app/foo/@modal/(...post)/[id]`. That
means when you trigger the same interception on `/bar`, it will return
the tree from `/foo`.
### How?
This PR will prefix the prefetch cache key with `state.nextUrl` when
necessary.
Fixes#49878Fixes#52748
Closes NEXT-1818
### What?
Catch-all routes are being matched to parallel routes which causes
issues like an interception route being handled by the wrong page
component, or a page component being associated with multiple pages
resulting in a "You cannot have two parallel pages that resolve to the
same path" build error.
### Why?
#58215 fixed a bug that caused catchall paths to not properly match when
used with parallel routes. In other words, a catchall slot wouldn't
render on a page that could match that catch all. Or a catchall page
wouldn't match a slot. At build time, a normalization step was
introduced to take application paths and attempt to perform this
matching behavior.
However in it's current form, this causes the errors mentioned above to
manifest. To better illustrate the problem, here are a few examples:
Given:
```
{
'/': [ '/page' ],
'/[...slug]': [ '/[...slug]/page' ],
'/items/[...ids]': [ '/items/[...ids]/page' ],
'/(.)items/[...ids]': [ '/@modal/(.)items/[...ids]/page' ]
}
```
The normalization logic would produce:
```
{
'/': [ '/page' ],
'/[...slug]': [ '/[...slug]/page' ],
'/items/[...ids]': [ '/items/[...ids]/page' ],
'/(.)items/[...ids]': [ '/@modal/(.)items/[...ids]/page', '/[...slug]/page' ]
}
```
The interception route will now be improperly handled by
`[...slug]/page` rather than the interception handler.
Another example, which rather than incorrectly handling a match, will
produce a build error:
Given:
```
{
'/': [ '/(group-b)/page' ],
'/[...catcher]': [ '/(group-a)/@parallel/[...catcher]/page' ]
}
```
The normalization logic would produce:
```
{
'/': [ '/(group-b)/page', '/(group-a)/@parallel/[...catcher]/page' ],
'/[...catcher]': [ '/(group-a)/@parallel/[...catcher]/page' ]
}
```
The parallel catch-all slot is now part of `/`. This means when building
the loader tree, two `children` parallel segments (aka page components)
will be found when hitting `/`, which is an error.
The error that was added here was originally intended to help catch
scenarios like:
`/app/(group-a)/page` and `/app/(group-b)/page`. However it also throws
for parallel slots, which isn't necessarily an error (especially since
the normalization logic will push potential matches).
### How?
There are two small fixes in this PR, the rest are an abundance of e2e
tests to help prevent regressions.
- When normalizing catch-all routes, we will not attempt to push any
page entrypoints for interception routes. These should already have all
the information they need in `appPaths`.
- Before throwing the error about duplicate page segments in
`next-app-loader`, we check to see if it's because we already matched a
page component but we also detected a parallel slot that would have
matched the page slot. In this case, we don't error, since the app can
recover from this.
- Loading a client reference manifest shouldn't throw a cryptic require
error. `loadClientReferenceManifest` is already potentially returning
undefined, so this case should already be handled gracefully
Separately, we'll need to follow-up on the Turbopack side to:
- Make sure the duplicate matching matches the Webpack implementation (I
believe Webpack is sorting, but Turbopack isn't)
- Implement #58215 in Turbopack. Once this is done, we should expect the
tests added in this PR to start failing.
Fixes#58272Fixes#58660Fixes#58312Fixes#59782Fixes#59784
Closes NEXT-1809
Adds a regression test and a fix for a bug that sometimes happens when a
prefetched route on the client becomes stale — the app would get stuck
in a loading state.
The problem was the condition I used to fallback to the non-PPR
implementation, inside navigateReducer. It was too narrow, causing
prefetched segments that contained dynamic holes to sometimes be treated
as if they were complete. The net effect was that the dynamic data would
never stream in, and the page would get stuck in a fallback state until
the stale prefetch was eventually purged from the cache, or the user
refreshed the page.
The reason the mistake happened was, as an incremental step, I decided
to fallback to the non-PPR implementation for any case where I hadn't
yet implemented the equivalent functionality. I think still think this
is a good strategy, despite the mistake, but I'm eager to get everything
migrated to the new model as soon as possible.
Closes NEXT-1920
We already have variables of swc loaders for different bundling layers,
the composed one should just be loaders instead of being called "swc
loader"
Closes NEXT-1917
If a user accidentally configures a non-valid `revalidate` value this
ensures we show a proper error message instead of silently tolerating
it.
Closes: NEXT-1896
Closes NEXT-1915
For a more detailed explanation of the algorithm, refer to the comments
in ppr-navigations.ts. Below is a high-level overview.
### Step 1: Render the prefetched data immediately
Immediately upon navigation, we construct a new Cache Node tree (i.e.
copy-on-write) that represents the optimistic result of a navigation,
using both the current Cache Node tree and data that was prefetched
prior to navigation.
At this point, we haven't yet received the navigation response from the
server. It could send back something completely different from the tree
that was prefetched — due to rewrites, default routes, parallel routes,
etc.
But in most cases, it will return the same tree that we prefetched, just
with the dynamic holes filled in. So we optimistically assume this will
happen, and accept that the real result could be arbitrarily different.
We'll reuse anything that was already in the previous tree, since that's
what the server does.
New segments (ones that don't appear in the old tree) are assigned an
unresolved promise. The data for these promises will be fulfilled later,
when the navigation response is received.
The tree can be rendered immediately after it is created. Any new trees
that do not have prefetch data will suspend during rendering, until the
dynamic data streams in.
### Step 2: Fill in the dynamic data as it streams in
When the dynamic data is received from the server, we can start filling
in the unresolved promises in the tree. All the pending promises that
were spawned by the navigation will be resolved, either with dynamic
data from the server, or `null` to indicate that the data is missing.
A `null` value will trigger a lazy fetch during render, which will then
patch up the tree using the same mechanism as the non-PPR implementation
(serverPatchReducer).
Usually, the server will respond with exactly the subset of data that
we're waiting for — everything below the nearest shared layout. But
technically, the server can return anything it wants.
This does _not_ create a new tree; it modifies the existing one in
place. Which means it must follow the Suspense rules of cache safety.
## To Do
Not all necessarily PR-blocking, since the status quo is that
navigations don't work at all when PPR is enabled
- [x] Figure out how to handle dynamic metadata. Need to switch from
prefetched metadata to final.
- [x] Some mistake related to parallel routes, need to look into failing
tests
Closes NEXT-1894
### What?
Navigating to a layout that is part of a route group that uses route
interception currently will trigger a 404 error if the route group
doesn't define a `default` segment.
### Why?
When `next-app-loader` injects fallback defaults into the loader tree,
it does so by first seeing if a default already exists. However it does
this without ignoring route groups, meaning if you have a
`/app/default.tsx` and your interception route is at
`/app/(level1)/(level2)`, it will look for the default at
`/app/(level1)/(level2)/default.tsx`.
When a `default` isn't found, the fallback behavior is to trigger a
`notFound()` error. This means navigating to the intercepting route that
has no `default` for the `children` segment will 404.
### How?
This adjusts the fallback behavior by attempting to find the `default`
by normalizing the segment path, which will ignore route groups. That
way `/app/(level1)/(level2)/default` will first check `/app/default.tsx`
before falling back to `notFound` behavior.
Fixes#59279
Closes NEXT-1813
If the data for a segment is missing when LayoutRouter renders, it
initiates a lazy fetch to patch the cache. This is how all dynamic data
fetching works in the pre-PPR implementation.
For PPR, we won't use this mechanism anymore for regular navigations,
but (at least for now) we will still use it as a fallback behavior if
the server response does not match what we expected to receive.
This commit adds support for asynchronously triggering a lazy fetch, by
unwrapping the segment data promise inside LayoutRouter to check if it's
missing. If so, it will trigger the lazy fetch mechanism.
When PPR is not enabled this should not observably impact behavior.
Closes NEXT-1893
When uploading traces from `.next/trace`, target paths that trigger
compilations were being normalized to paths like
`[project]/../../../../../middleware`. This PR removes the normalization
logic so that the triggers appear as `/middleware` which is easier to
understand.
## What?
Moves the changeSubscription for _document into the finally block,
similar to how the page itself is handled there as well.
This should allow moving the rest of the try block into a separate
function that can be reused for builds too.
<!-- 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-1885
## What?
I'm working on consolidating a bunch of the file writing related pieces
in the Turbopack handling in the dev server so that it can be abstracted
out as it's needed for `next build` too.
These changes make sure that there is a single `writeManifests()`
instead of picking specific manifests to write.
We can optimize this later but for now the overhead of writing them to
disk separately is negligible.
<!-- 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-1884
### What?
There are a bunch of different bugs caused by the same underlying issue,
but the common thread is that performing any sort of router cache update
(either through `router.refresh()`, `revalidatePath()`, or `redirect()`)
inside of a parallel route would break the router preventing subsequent
actions, and not resolve any pending state such as from `useFormState`.
### Why?
`applyPatch` is responsible for taking an update response from the
server and merging it into the client router cache. However, there's
specific bailout logic to skip over applying the patch to a
`__DEFAULT__` segment (which corresponds with a `default.tsx` page).
When the router detects a cache node that is expected to be rendered on
the page but contains no data, the router will trigger a lazy fetch to
retrieve the data that's expected to be there
([ref](5adacb6912/packages/next/src/client/components/layout-router.tsx (L359-L370)))
and then update the router cache once the data resolves
([ref](5adacb6912/packages/next/src/client/components/layout-router.tsx (L399-L404))).
This is causing the router to get stuck in a loop: it'll fetch the data
for the cache node, send the data to the router reducer to merge it into
the existing cache nodes, skip merging that data in for `__DEFAULT__`
segments, and repeat.
### How?
We currently assign `__DEFAULT__` to have `notFound()` behavior when
there isn't a `default.tsx` component for a particular segment. This
makes it so that when loading a page that renders a slot without slot
content / a `default`, it 404s. But when performing a client-side
navigation, the intended behavior is different: we keep whatever was in
the `default` slots place, until the user refreshes the page, which
would then 404.
However, this logic is incorrect when triggering any of the above
mentioned cache node revalidation strategies: if we always skip applying
to the `__DEFAULT__` segment, slots will never properly handle reducer
actions that rely on making changes to their cache nodes.
This splits these different `applyPatch` functions: one that will apply
to the full tree, and another that'll apply to everything except the
default segments with the existing bailout condition.
Fixes#54173Fixes#58772Fixes#54723Fixes#57665
Closes NEXT-1706
Closes NEXT-1815
Closes NEXT-1812
## What?
Ensures `Object.entries` is not called on the `Map`. Seems this only
fails in a very particular case but potentially this fixes other issues
than the one I added in the tests too.
## How?
`Object.entries()` results in an empty array when called on a `Map`.
Created a shared type declaration for the value and removed the
`Object.entries`. Benefit of this is that we can skip the loop as well.
<!-- 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 #
-->
## What?
Small refactor to move Turbopack hotreloader interface creation to a
separate function: `createHotReloaderTurbopack`.
Renamed `HotReloader` to `HotReloaderWebpack`.
Initially wanted to move `createHotReloaderTurbopack` to a separate file
but it relies on a bunch of in-scope variables so that is not
straightforward. Will do that later.
<!-- 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-1881
