<!-- 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
- 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?
Add configuration options to modify the `bodyParser` size as it used to
be available in Page Router.
### Why?
Server Actions "Error: Body exceeded 1mb limit" cannot be resolved since
the body-parser limit size is hardcoded to `1mb`.
### How?
Closes NEXT-
Fixes #
-->
### What?
Add configuration options to modify the `bodyParser` size as it used to
be available in Page Router for APIs.
```js
export const config = {
api: {
responseLimit: false | '8mb'
},
}
```
Reference: [API Routes Response Size
Limit](https://nextjs.org/docs/messages/api-routes-response-size-limit)
### Why?
Server Actions "Error: Body exceeded 1mb limit" cannot be resolved since
the body-parser limit size is hardcoded to `1mb`.
```js
// /packages/next/src/server/app-render/action-handler.ts
// ...
const actionData = (await parseBody(req, '1mb')) || ''
// ...
```
Reference:
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/packages/next/src/server/app-render/action-handler.ts#L355
### How?
- Added option "serverActionsLimit" as `SizeLimit` type to
`config-shared.ts`
- Modified `action-handler.ts` to validate `serverActions` &
`serverActionsLimit` options in nextConfig
- Added conditional `serverActionsLimit` value and `1mb` if falsy
**Working on testing**
Fixes#49891 | #51097 | #51099
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
Co-authored-by: Shu Ding <g@shud.in>
Request data flow in the server
```
request ---> router worker (1) ---> ipc ---> render worker app (2)
|-----> render worker pages (3)
```
When it's hitting `_next/*` unmatched routes in standalone server, it will render 404, but when you hit `_next/*` it will render app not-found as the app router is always enabled, but router worker isn't set up with require-hook for proper built-in react version, then the app-render will fail with `./server.edge` exports not found error.
We detect if it's in the render worker, then do the app paths rendering instead of directly looking up for app paths in route worker. This could avoid unexpected accesses to the app-render
Fixes#51482Fixes#50232Closes#51506
Reverts changes in #51172
fix NEXT-1260
When conflicted pages occur between app and pages server used to throw error and you need to solve the conflicts and restart the server.
This PR capture the error during files aggregation, and send to client to display the error for files confliction. This will send all the conflicts to client and it will still error until you solve all of them. But since the server is not stuck by errors, client can recover once the error is solved.
Closes NEXT-1283
The next-metadata-route-loader emitted content with `"next/server"` is still using cjs version which is not get tree-shaked on edge runtime, This PR adds a new esm entry for it and mapped it that on edge runtime so unused exports can be tree-shaked. This case happened when users are using ImageResponse from `"@vercel/og"` instead of `"next/server"`.
2nd change is adding another alias to map `@vercel/og` package to vendored og package inside next.js, this way we could merge the two package instead of bundled both of them
Fixes: NEXT-1303
changed `require.reoslve("next/dist/xxx")` to `${NEXT_PROJECT_ROOT}/xxx}` to avoid to be traced by nft.
Continuing on changes to move the rendering logic into the bundles.
- Unifies edge render functions: `appRenderToHTML` and `pagesRenderToHTML` becomes `renderToHTML`
- When an error occurs, the error module's match is used so the module's internal render can be used (easing transition away from using the server's render method)
- Improved test resiliance
### What?
Paths with interception markers adjacent to dynamic segments are not correctly parsed, which leads to the path match logic failing.
### Why?
`getParametrizedRoutes` checks for brackets but isn't expecting to receive an interception marker. For example, a path of `/photos/(.)[author]/[id]` results in the following regex:
`/^\/photos\/\(\.\)\[author\]\/([^/]+?)(?:\/)?$/`
This will not match a path of `/photos/(.)zack/1` since it retained the `[author]` brackets.
`getSegmentParam` has a similar issue when getting values for path params, though we can just skip the interception markers and go straight to the params.
Closes NEXT-1166, NEXT-1013
Fixes#48143Fixes#49614
link NEXT-1013
### Fixing a bug
- [x] Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- [x] 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
### What?
Currently, when the check on validating the type of `revalidate` is run,
we use the `Number` function to parse the value of `revalidate`, however
the `Number` function takes a
[`StringNumericLiteral`](https://tc39.es/ecma262/2023/#prod-StringNumericLiteral)
which doesn't allow the usage of the `_` separator to format your
numbers. This PR allows you to add numeric separators in the
`revalidate` export.
### Why?
When configuring the actual code, we should be allowed to use numeric
separators as it is a syntax that is supported by most runtimes.
### How?
A simple `replaceAll` call that removes all `_`s between digits.
Closes NEXT-1122
Fixes#49485
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
Small QOL improvements to `RenderResult` and `RouteModule` setup. This
also adds a test to verify that headers aren't sent on responses that
have already been sent.
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
You'll probably want to disable whitespace in the diff
## Description
This allows for better editor support by using `describe` or functions called `describe` with the same syntax instead of custom names.
Changes:
- `nextTestSetup` can be used instead of `createNextDescribe` keeping the same behaviour but being called inside a `describe` "block" (not applied everywhere)
- `getSnapshotTestDescribe` replaced with a custom `describe.each`
- `sandbox` helper function for `acceptance`/`acceptance-app` merged into a single shared one
- `outdent` to remove the indent from inline files in tests which helps with consistent snapshots
### What?
this forces all tests to use turbopack independent of the way they invoke next dev
### Why?
some tests were not running turbopack
fixes WEB-1187
follow up on #51413 where I kinda forgot to support parsing layout files in sub routes in a parallel segment.
This should fix it by making sure that we check at all level of the app loader tree and by creating an implicit inner `children` for all parallel slot
link NEXT-1301
When working with React Server Components, it's essential to have a
clear understanding of how they function and how to troubleshoot any
errors that may arise. This PR adds links to our documentation whenever
an error related to React Server Components occurs.
Currently an "action module" (files with `"use server"` on top) can be
imported by both the server and client layers. In that case, we can't
fork that action module into two modules (one on the server layer, one
on the action layer), but only create it once on the server layer.
This ensures that the action module instance doesn't get forked.
Closes#50801.
fix NEXT-1265
This PR fixes a bug in which the layout files were not picked up if they were direct children of a parallel route slot.
Note: there's a bunch of other files that I've used for debugging that are not used for the test but I'm leaving them for future me.
link NEXT-969
There're 3 layers in the RSC module graph: server → client → action. "Action" means that a Client Component re-enters the server layer by importing a file with `"use server"`, and it should behave the same as the server layer but you can't enter the client layer again (hence we have a 3rd layer name).
Since the action layer has the same behavior and module resolution rules, it should be bundled just like the server layer.
Closes#50658. Originally the issue was that `auth/next` isn't being bundled on the action layer, and it has the async local storage imported. Because of that, that storage comes from node_modules instead of the server bundle.
fix NEXT-1290
Make sure we are using `var` instead of `const` as we always put the new
appended statements to the end of the module body, but they can still be
referenced before in the HOC case in the runtime. This causes a runtime
error.
Tl;dr: `a = 1; var a` is fine, but `a; const a = ...` will result in a
compilation error.
Closes#49344.
Remove the Server CSS manifest and related logic, and use the chunkGroup
CSS files instead for each entry to inject stylesheet links.
Why was that manifest needed in the first place? When implementing CSS
collection for RSC and nested layout initially, we collect CSS imports
at each layer and create corresponding client entries. But then soon got
hit by the problem of duplication and improper tree-shaking. Two layers
can have the same CSS imported so we solved it in a way that "if an
upper layer imports this module, skip it in child layers". Note that
this is deduped by module, so we need to keep the information of "layer
(entry) → CSS modules" somewhere, in a manifest.
Another reason is that we create the client entry before Webpack
optimizes modules, so we can inject the client entry into the same
compilation. But that means the collected client modules from the server
layer are not properly optimized (DCE). **This is a general issue at the
moment that's not specifically related to CSS, although using that
manifest to collect DCE'd info and join the original collected CSS files
with that info temporarily solved it.** That's why I disabled some tests
related to font CSS collection and want to improve it in a more general
way.
Why is that not needed anymore? Main reason is to keep a good balance
between duplication and number of chunks, and delegate the decision to
Webpack's splitChunks plugin. It is not possible to get to a point of 0
duplication unless we ship every CSS module as a single chunk. And since
in #50406 we made the duplication better but at the chunk asset level,
instead of the original module level.
Prior work: #50406, #50610.
### What?
Fixes https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/50129
### Why?
The current denormalization of app dir paths doesnt account for the
normalization done in `normalizeAppPath`, causing build log outputs for
certain paths such as anything under a route groups to be incorrect
### How?
There's 2 ways this could be fixed:
1.) Denormalize the app dir paths by reading the
`app-path-routes-manifest.json` and mapping back to the original file
path
2.) (what I chose to do) Normalize the keys of `appBuildManifest`
### Result
App dir paths, including route groups, now have their correct output
size
<img width="494" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/vercel/next.js/assets/93682696/0eee79b8-7d60-4c88-b07a-dfb750aa9592">
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
This cleans up some setup functions within the route modules, improves logic around headers, and handles the case where the URL is invalid better for routes using the request adapters.
Similar to tags and paths, when `cookies().set()` is called we have to
invalidate the client router cache as well so routes with
`cookies().get()` will not holding the stale data. This is critical for
auth and other scenarios.
In the future we can have an optimization to only invalidate routes that
actually rely on cookies, similar to paths.
This PR fixes a few reports that we were double fetching when navigating via a link that had prefetch false.
## Context
The bug was happening because we were inadvertently eagerly fetching even if we potentially bailed out of the optimistic navigation, which would then trigger another fetch from going through the regular navigation path.
There's potentially another bug here where we should potentially not bail out of optimistic navigation in the cases reported but we can fix that later.
fix#49844
link NEXT-1287
## What?
While looking at the CPU profile of booting up Vercel's site I noticed
that we call `getPageStaticInfo` a lot. Looking into this more it turns
out `getPageStaticInfo` is currently called for all routes, `pages` and
`app`, even though the data is only being used to keep track of which
routes are edge functions, however, this is already tracked as part of
the build output so this didn't make sense to me. First I tried
commenting out this entire block and all tests were passing, so I
removed it except for middleware as middleware can provide a `matcher`
which does need to be known before compiling the file as of right now.
After that change a different set of tests started failing, specifically
the one that checks if we warn correctly. Interestingly by fixing
`getPageStaticInfo` being called early and for all routes it also caused
these warnings to no longer trigger as there was a case in the manifest
plugin that called `getPageStaticInfo` with less information. Calling
`getPageStaticInfo` there was not needed either as we call
`getPageStaticInfo` at the beginning of the build for each entrypoint so
we already have the information required, it just had to be passed down
so that the manifest plugin could use it.
For Vercel's site this change improves booting the dev server by over 1
second.
Related to #48748
<!-- 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
- 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: Jiachi Liu <inbox@huozhi.im>
When navigating to a route with a hash parameter, the layout router
jumps to the element by scrolling to the node's `offsetTop` value.
However, this will ignore `scroll-padding`, which deviates from browser
behavior.
It looks like this isn't an issue in the pages router which currently
makes use of
[`scrollIntoView`](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/packages/next/src/shared/lib/router/router.ts#L2262).
Closes NEXT-1171
Fixes#49612
---------
### What?
Add all available options to cli commands
Consistent formatting for all options
### Why?
Options were not consistent across all commands, some were missing
Co-authored-by: Steven <229881+styfle@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <22380829+ijjk@users.noreply.github.com>
Fixes#50232
Passing down the private env into `'render-server'` module to pick up the proper react with require-hook in standalone server
fix NEXT-1260
We already have a warning when using `next export` with `output: export` because the `next export` is effectively a no-op (the exported output was already generated during `next build`).
However, this PR ensures that `next export -o <dir>` throws an error when `output: export` is defined because the files were already emitted to the `distDir` in the `next build` step and we can't safely no-op at this point.
We also guide the user to the correct solution which is to use `output: export` along with `distDir: <dir>` in your next.config.js (instead of mixing legacy behavior with the new behavior).
fix#48207
fix NEXT-980
