This makes some critical modifications to the app render pipeline when
PPR has been enabled for pages with segments defining:
```js
export const dynamic = "force-dynamic"
```
Importantly, it no longer modifies the revalidation time to zero for
those pages, and now falls back to the provided default revalidation
time. When static render occurs, if the page being rendered has a
segment config defining `dynamic === "force-dynamic"`, then it will
postpone at the root of the component tree. This ensures that no render
code is executed for the page, as the entirety of the tree will have
postponed. This fixes the bug where the flight prefetch wasn't generated
correctly as well.
Most of them can now be handled by `optimizePackageImports` as I
manually tested them locally. The main benefit is that structural
updates from these libs won't affect our internal configurations
anymore, as they're automatic with the new approach. The little downside
is that the automatic way is a bit slower than the `modularizeImports`
config as it needs to do extra analyzation. But overall, this is a good
direction.
Depends on #59254.
### What?
Using an interception marker next to a dynamic segment does not behave
properly when deployed to Vercel
### Why?
The named route regex that gets created is not accounting for the
interception marker, which is causing the non-intercepted route to match
the intercepted serverless function.
### How?
This factors in the interception marker when building the named route
regex so that the non-intercepted route regex properly matches when
loading the non-intercepted page.
Deployment verified here: https://test-intercept-mu.vercel.app/
Closes NEXT-1786
Fixes#54650
Fixes#57624. The recent issue was an unexpected side effect caused by
305bb01506,
which only affects specific packages like `@mui/material`.
The problem was that the entry file of `@mui/material` has `"use
client"` at top, which affects the compilation result to output
reference info only (when on the RSC layer), instead of keeping the
original export statements. And the fix here is to ignore all layer info
and React specific transforms here, as barrel optimization isn't related
to all these framework features at all. To keep all directives
unchanged, the SWC transform needs to parse and pass that info to the
Webpack loader.
This PR adds a test to ensure that `@mui/material` is working as
expected (less than 1500 modules compiled). Without this feature it'll
be ~2400 modules.
Closes NEXT-1793, closes NEXT-1762.
### What?
add a few user-focused info-level spans to allow high-level tracing on a
normal build.
`NEXT_TURBOPACK_TRACING=1` can be used to generate a `.next/trace.log`
file
### Why?
Gain insight into build performance and module cost
Closes PACK-2083
Adds process.env.__NEXT_PPR as static flag that it gets inlined by
DefinePlugin during build.
This matches what we do for other experiments, but I do wonder, why do
we bother with process.env at all instead of a global __NEXT_PPR symbol?
I'll leave that for later discussion.
Closes NEXT-1792
Similar in spirit to #58938.
The app router reducer state used to be managed by useReducer, so it was
written to be resilient to rebasing — the same action may be processed
multiple times. Now that we've lifted the reducer outside of React
(#56497), each action runs only a single time. So we can simplify some
of the logic.
The purpose of the `mutable` field was so that if an action is processed
multiple times, state could be reused between each run; for example, to
prevent redundant network fetches. Now that this scenario can no longer
happen, we can remove it.
I had to update some of the unit tests in navigate-reducer because they
were written with the assumption that the reducer was called multiple
times. As far as I can tell, most of this behavior is covered by e2e
tests anyway, so I don't think it's too risky.
Closes NEXT-1782
### What?
A follow up for #58267 and #58394.
We no longer need the git branch for history it's stored in datadog now
and we also decided that we no longer need slack reporting.
Closes PACK-2039
---------
Co-authored-by: Tim Neutkens <tim@timneutkens.nl>
## What?
Skips more tests that are running `next build` which is not supported by
Turbopack yet.
## How?
Used an approach where all `next build` tests would fail if
`TURBOPACK=1` is set, which is how the tests run. This highlighted the
cases `next build` was still running.
<!-- 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 #
-->
Closes NEXT-1791
This resolves an issue introduced in #52361 where `shouldOmit` is
overwritten based on if it is a directory or not without considering
include conditions.
In an environment where the the application being built is orchestrated
and managed by bazel, all files are symbolic links and thus without this
the file includes predicate checks aren't considered - and the build
fails under certain conditions.
<!-- 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 #
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: Shu Ding <g@shud.in>
This ensures we use the correct `srcPathname` in minimal mode so that we
can normalize the URL and generate the correct `ssgCacheKey` which is
used for request caching/de-duping.
We aren't able to add a reliable test case for this as it is a race
condition within a second of a previous request although this was
verified against a stress test repro here
https://overlapping-segments-h1455lwvk-vtest314-ijjk-testing.vercel.app/repro/tutorials/demo
This behavior seems to have regressed in
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/45716
Closes NEXT-1777
### What?
When using a server action on an intercepted route, when submitting that
action, you'd expect it to correspond with the page you're currently on.
However if you have route interception set up, and you load the page
rather than the intercepted page, submitting the action would `POST` to
the intercepted page. This would result in a 404 error because the
action ID you're attempting to submit wouldn't be found on the requested
page.
### Why?
Interception routes rely on the `Next-Url` request header to determine
if an interception should occur via a rewrite. However, server actions
are submitted with this header as well, so the rewrite will be applied
to the `POST` request corresponding with a non-existent action, or an
action on the intercepted page.
### How?
When loading a page that has an intercepted route, `nextUrl` should be
consistent with URL derived from the flight router state tree. But when
an interception occurs via navigation, `nextUrl` will now deviate. I'm
using this to determine whether or not `Next-Url` should be forwarded
along in the `POST` request.
Closes NEXT-1436
Fixes#52591Fixes#49934
