This ensures we don't fail to return the full body when storing to
fetch-cache in edge-runtime. Also ensures the fetch cache tests are
running for Node.js v16 correctly.
Fetch handling was also failing on Node.js v16 due to react's use of
`res.clone()` being broken with undici which is fixed in the latest
version of edge-runtime so this bumps that.
x-ref: [slack
thread](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03S8ED1DKM/p1681310566927429)
Ensure we handle the use-case where a React Server Component using
`fetch` encounters a `204` response.
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
### What?
Fixes a bug where `fetch()` to a page that calls `redirect()` would hang
infinitely.
### How?
The `Location` header was missing. The reason this wasn't surfaced
before is that we also inject the `<meta>` tag to redirect which the
browser would pick up to redirect too.
Fixes NEXT-997
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
This updates the app route handler signature to be more correct to
prevent the issue with type casting:
```diff
- (request: Request, ctx) => Response
+ (request: NextRequest, ctx) => Promise<Response> | Response
```
This also ensures that the context paramter has the correct types:
```diff
type AppRouteHandlerFnContext = {
- params?: { [param: string]: any }
+ params?: Record<string, string | string[]>
}
```
Since exiting in `setTimeout()` can cause a race condition with sending
the result from the worker and we don't want to destroy workers when
trying to leverage them as it has a perf impact this ensures we create
unique workers per usage and destroy them afterwards.
x-ref: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/47716
Fixes: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/48061
This PR fixes issues where rendering a new parallel route would reset
the scroll state of the page. This would be very apparent if you
scrolled down the page and opened a modal in a parallel route.
After a bit of investigating, I found out that the scroll behaviour
worked like this:
- after a navigation, we say to the router that we should auto-scroll if
possible
- but we don't specify which node of the tree should scroll
- so what happened is that the first router node to run the auto-scroll
effect would steal the auto-scroll, even though it might have been
destined for another node
The fix consists of
- when we received the flight patch, we compute all new segment paths
that will be rendered and add them to the scroll ref
- when the router says that we should autoscroll, the autoscroll
components will now read those paths and compare them with their segment
path and if yes, they will autoscroll
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
link NEXT-974
Closes#48222.
This PR introduces a new utility function that checks the resource path,
module type, and loaders to replace the existing CSS regex in the Flight
loaders and plugins. The new function is more robust and can be extended
to correctly support other libraries such as `vanilla-extract`.
cc @SuttonJack and @SukkaW (this could be related to the other issue
we've discussed too).
When collecting static icons we need both collect the one from layout
and page, but for root level route `/` we missed the `favicon.ico`
before so when other icon existed, the root page's collected icons will
cover root layout collected ones, which resulted into favicon missing
Fixes#48147
Closes NEXT-976
### What
Support `opengraph-image.alt.txt` and `twitter-image.alt.txt` for static
og/tw metadata image when they need to specify alt txt.
Closes NEXT-990
### Why
for og/tw images, you could have multiple images, so it's tricky to set
alt in metadata exports with alt text. For static case we want it can
work with static files, `.alt.txt` files will be the type to provide alt
text content
### What?
The change in #47985 breaks the URLs of static image files like
`/(group)/opengraph-image.png` to `/opengraph-image.png-012345`.
References from `/` are also broken.
### Why?
This is because only `opengraph-image.ts` and `opengraph-image.tsx` are
considered.
### How?
In this Pull Request, we are trying to solve the problem by including
similar support for `opengraph-image.png` and `opengraph-image.jpeg`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jiachi Liu <inbox@huozhi.im>
In a previous PR (https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/46753), the
`originalSource` was saved to be passed along through the build process.
This was done a bit too late in the flow, which made `originalSource`
include some transformations.
Because `originalSource` is used for display purposes, we need it
unmodified. This PR preserves `originalSource`.
This PR fixes an issue where throwing a notFound error in a parallel
route at the top level at the root level would trigger a notfound
boundary at the parallel route level, which meant in practice that you
could still see the other slots being rendered below.
This behaviour is undesirable and was caused by the fact that we were
inserting a default one at each top-level parallel route. This is not
longer needed as we have a global one in `app-router.tsx`
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
fixes NEXT-968
This PR adds a new marker for intercepting siblings routes + adds some
validation to intercepting routes ( you shouldn't use (..) at the top
level!)
also fixes a bug with any interception from `/` when navigating from a
child route
the new marker, `(.)`, makes it easier to model cases like
```
/profile/[id]
/profile/[id]/photos/[id]/
```
With the current syntax available, you’d need to do:
```with (..):
/profile/[id]/(..)[id]/photos/[id]
with (...):
/profile/[id]/(...)profile/[id]/photos/[id]
with (..)(..):
/profile/[id]/(..)(..)profile/[id]/photos/[id]
```
now, with (.)
```
/profile/[id]/(.)photos/[id]
```
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
link NEXT-935
also fixes NEXT-970
fixes NEXT-973
This PR basically adds support for processing multiple router payloads.
Previously we were only handling one payload at a time but now that we
introduced parallel routes, we need to be able to render and return
separate parts of the layout separately.
Before, the single payload was generated in a DFS manner: we traversed
the router state and rendered the first segment of the tree that we
found needed rendering. In practice, this meant that we could miss
adjacent segments that might need to be re-rendered as well.
Now, we iterate all branches of the tree and return an array of flight
patches to be applied on the client correctly.
fixes NEXT-971
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
This unblocks further optimization opportunities as well as fixes for
systematic problems such as NEXT-227. After this PR, only production
mode of non-app projects will be running on the legacy main process
mode.
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
Without `top: 0` the route announcer triggers subtle layout shift in
Blink/Chrome.
BTW, this mostly (possibly only?) occurs on pages with specific overflow
proprty combinations on `<html/>` and `<body/>`, and only when rendering
inside a custom element like the `<next-route-announcer />` portal.
(Changing the portal into `<div/>` seems to make the layout shift
disappear, but that would be far more invasive change than just adding
`top:0`.)
---------
Co-authored-by: Shu Ding <g@shud.in>
For now, this isn't a strong requirement as normal `fetch` requests will
still work with `react@next`. But in the future, form related props e.g.
`action=` and `formAction=` requires the experimental build.
Fixes NEXT-954.
Reverts vercel/next.js#48038
fix NEXT-926
---
The root cause was that when copying the package.json, I removed all
fields except for a few (such as `exports`) but missed the `browser`
field. That caused the client bundle to resolve to the Node.js version
of React DOM, and then we had the `async_hooks` error. Added it back in
99c9b9e51f8b0d4e4503ece9d07bce09161f3341.
I reproduced the error with next-site earlier and confirmed that this
fix is good.
### What?
Report additional telemetry related to cached fetches:
- Fetch Index number to group related fetches (cache-get, cache-set,
origin)
- Origin URL map cache key to original upstream URL
### Why?
This is needed for fetch cache telemetry on the Vercel platform.
### How?
Telemetry is provided through optional parameters added to the fetch
call configuration. It is similar to the `next: {revalidate: X}` and
`{next: { internal: true }}` fields.
The origin URL and fetch index are calculated in the patch-fetch
function and are passed down to the caching classes as needed. These
fields are optional and ignored by the `FileSystemCache`.
### What?
Our current logic of detecting if a route allows dynamic params or not
(`fallback`) is flawed, and this PR fixes it.
### Why?
Right now, if no `generateStaticParams` is specified we return
`fallback: undefined` during dev. However, for an app with multiple
params, it may have multiple `generateStaticParams` defined in different
levels. If some level isn't covered by any `generateStaticParams`, we
still can't determine the fallback value.
### How?
I added a naive implementation to check if all params are covered by
`generateStaticParams` in the current or inner layers.
Closes NEXT-946
### What?
This PR makes the parent layout of parallel routes re-render when the
parallel route segments are different or when either of them has a
refetch marker.
Example:
```
.
└── app/
├── page.ts
├── layout.ts
├── foo/
│ └── page.ts
└── @modal/
├── default.js
└── foo/
└── page.ts
```
Here if you navigated to `/foo` from `/`, `@modal/foo/page` would never
get re-rendered because the tree would only re-render from
`foo/page.ts`.
This PR adds a check that checks the router state on navigation to see
if the parallel route segments diverge on navigation. Here we would be
checking that `@modal/default` is different from `@modal/page` so we
would re-render.
Also added some logic to make sure that refetch routes are processed
first when handling parallel routes.
### Why?
See example
Closes NEXT-966
Fixes #
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
This accomplishes 2 things:
1. binds the turbopack dev server to the IPv6 unspecified address
2. initializes our router with the same hostname/port of the turobpack
server
The first matches the behavior of the Node.js dev server. The IPv6
unspecified address is similar to IPv4's `0.0.0.0` address, allowing us
to accept connection from anywhere. Importantly, it _also_ allows
accepting IPv4 connections, making this address truly universal.
The second means the `request` parameter to any middleware will have the
correct origin, and the request's URL can be used to craft fetch
requests to API endpoints. `new URL(req.url).origin` will be the origin
of the turbopack dev server.
Fixes https://github.com/vercel/turbo/issues/4456
Fixes WEB-855
With the addition of the query prefix we can hit the max length for PCRE
named matches so this reduces the prefix length and ensures we go
through the param name validation still
x-ref: https://twitter.com/simonecervini/status/1644123851003928579
