## What?
#62528 caused test/e2e/app-dir/not-found/conflict-route to fail
compilation in Turbopack, this compiler error was previously already
reported by Turbopack but Next.js didn't show it, which #62528 resolved.
This PR changes the handling for the not-found handling to be consistent
between development and build, which ensures that the "special" page no
longer conflicts with app/not-found/page.js.
Closes NEXT-2617
Note: this is a reworked iteration of
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/62585 which wasn't sufficient.
<!-- 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 #
-->
formalizes the concept of dynamic APIs inside Next to allow for varying
semantics beyond just staticGenerationBailout.
### Dynamic APIs
#### `markCurrentScopeAsDynamic`
useful to bail out of default caching semantics but does not imply a
Request specific data source was read. critically, this semantic is
ignored if you are inside a cache scope
#### `trackDynamicDataAccessed`
Must be called before reading any data source that is derived from
Request specific data. Currently this is `cookies()`, `headers()`, and
`searchParams`. This kind of data access inside a cache scope is
forbidden (it always should have been, but now it will error).
#### `trackDynamicFetch`
This one is unideal but the complexity of patch-fetch's current
implementation necessitates it for now. Essentially it will postpone if
we are prerendering. Long term this should be eliminated with a refactor
of patch fetch.
### Other Improvements
Also removes the `staticGenerationBailout` implementation as it has been
replaced with more specific logic in the places it was previously being
used.
One area that has also been enhanced is the proxy for app-route modules.
Previously we proxied the Request every time however when we are doing
non-static generation executions we generally don't want the overhead of
wrapping the request. In the refactor here I also improved the runtime
performance by using static proxy handlers and I believe I also fixed a
few bugs related to `clone` and `url`
In general there has been a bit of refactoring to clarify how we should
handle various render/execution states and a reduction in implicit side
effects for proper execution.
Another callout to notice is that app-route modules do not attempt a
static generation if they are force-dynamic regardless of the PPR
setting. Previously the PPR setting would opt them into this code path
which is not necessary because PPR itself does not work for routes, only
pages.
Closes NEXT-2099
### What?
Throwing a `notFound()` error inside of a segment that has an error
boundary will cause it to be handled by the segment's error boundary
rather than a parent not-found boundary.
### Why?
We assume anything that hits an `ErrorBoundary` is an actual error, but
this should not be the case when the caught error is one that is handled
by Next.js.
### How?
This checks if the caught error is one that is expected to be handled
someplace else.
Closes NEXT-2080
[slack
x-ref](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03S8ED1DKM/p1705003189392509?thread_ts=1704868742.169129&cid=C03S8ED1DKM)
Only output app routes if there's no pages routes in next build output
For hello world app you'll only see app dir routes
```
Route (app) Size First Load JS
+ First Load JS shared by all 78.1 kB
├ chunks/main-app-e4c0616da69beffe.js 76.5 kB
└ chunks/webpack-bf1a64d1eafd2816.js 1.61 kB
○ (Static) automatically rendered as static HTML (uses no initial props)
```
Also filter out `/favicon.ico` static route as it's confusing
Fixes#54174
We should only add default not-found boundary to loader tree components for root layout. It was accidently added for children routes before
### What?
Skip logging `/404` for pages routes in `next build` when app router root not-found is present
### Why?
When app router's root not-found is used it can cover all the not found cases, and for static rendering it can already replace the `404.html`. So in the tree view we don't need to log the pages `/404` when those cases are covered by app router.
### What?
We change the not-found rendering strategy to the origin one which recovers the not found error from the flight data, and hit the error boundary to display the closet not found component.
For parallel `@slot` we shouldn't pass down the not-found boundary, the boundary is only for `@children`.
### Why?
We're having a lot of not-found matching issues that manually searching for not found and layout won't be accurate as we have various scenarios like `(group)` routes, dynamic routes, etc.
### How?
Only render html with empty body so that the error can recover from flight and render the proper not-found component during hydration.
One change for metadata is that we need to get the "not-found" metadata in the initial render, so we'll catch the not-found error once there first and start render the "not-found" metadata and put it in the flight data. Then when it recovers it's still preserved.
Fixes#53694
Edge runtime doesn't have `/404` entry points as not-found, if server hits 404 it's hitting `/_not-found` entry point of edge bundles unlike nodejs server rendering.
In app-render it needs the information that when `pathname` (or can call `pagePath`) is `/404` it can render the `not-found.js` components properly
Separate the not-found test suite into 2 parts, a basic case testing all urls with `not-found.js` boundary, and another conflict route case with `not-found.js` with `not-found/` route at the same time
Fixes#53652Fixes#53210
