### What?
When using rewrites, in the scenario where a user visits an intercepted
route, reloads the page, goes back, and then revisits the same route, we
serve the page rather than the intercepted route.
### Why?
#59094 fixed the case where `ACTION_RESTORE` was not restoring `nextUrl`
properly. However there's a separate issue where when the `SERVER_PATCH`
action comes in, `handleMutable` attempts to compute `nextUrl` by
comparing the patched tree with the current tree. In the case of the
popstate event, both trees are the same, so the logic is currently
configured to fallback to `canonicalUrl`, which is not the correct URL
to use in the case of rewrites.
### How?
If the computed changed path is null, we should only fallback to using
`canonicalUrl` if we don't have a valid `nextUrl` that we can use.
Closes NEXT-1747
Fixes#56072
### What?
When using interception routes & rewrites, on first interception the
router will properly handle the request. But when using the back button
and attempting another interception, it won't work
### Why?
Intercepting routes rely on the accuracy of `nextUrl` -- but when
`ACTION_RESTORE` is dispatched (in the `popstate` event), `nextUrl` is
restored from `url.pathname` rather than the flight router state.
### How?
This uses the `extractPathFromFlightRouterState` util which will
properly handle setting `nextUrl`. This util is also used when creating
the initial router state.
Closes NEXT-1747
Fixes#56072
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>
