This updates our `moduleResolution` to `bundler` as this matches our heuristics much more closely so is more accurate. This shouldn't be a breaking change is it should be compatible with our previous default.
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <22380829+ijjk@users.noreply.github.com>
## What?
Removes `experimental.appDir` this was leftover from when I flipped the
switch.
Kept the config file as in the future we might add future flags and
such. It also helps that it has the types comment included so you always
get types.
<!-- 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 #
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
### What?
Took a bit to investigate this one, eventually found that the case where
it broke is this one:
```
app
├── [slug] // This matches `/blog`
│ └── page.js
└── blog
└── [name] // This matches `/blog/a-post`
└── page.js
```
The router cache key is based on the "static key" / "dynamic parameter
value" in the tree. This means that the cache key for `/blog` that
matches `/[slug]` would be the same as the static segment `blog`. This
caused the cache to become intertwined between those paths, it's
accidental that the router got stuck in that case, main reason it got
stuck is that the fetch for the RSC payload returned a deeper value than
expected. In `walkAddRefetch` we bailed because that walked the
`segmentPath` didn't match up.
The underlying problem with this was that the render would override the
cache nodes incorrectly. This would also cause wrong behavior, even
though that wasn't reported. E.g. `app/[slug]/layout.js` would apply on
`app/blog/[name]/page.js` because they'd share the `blog` cache node.
### How?
This PR changes the cache key to include the dynamic parameter name and
type, e.g. the dynamic segment `['slug', 'blog', 'd']` previously turned
into `'blog'` as the cache key, with these changes it turns into
`'slug|blog|d'`. For static segments like `blog` in `app/blog/[name]`
the key is still just `'blog'`.
I've also refactored the cases where we read the segment as the code was
duplicated in a few places.
Closes NEXT-877
Fixes#47297
<!-- 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 #
-->
fix NEXT-877
