fix(app-router): prefetch root-param segment trees - #2856
Conversation
|
/bigbonk review for issues |
commit: |
|
Review: prefetch root-param segment treesI traced the full change through both prefetch entry points ( VerdictNo blocking issues. The change is correct, well-scoped, and matches the two-stage What I verified
Non-blocking observations
Coverage noteBoth client prefetch entry points that build segment-prefetch headers are updated; the server side ( |
|
Review posted to PR #2856. SummaryI reviewed PR #2856 (fix(app-router): prefetch root-param segment trees) by tracing the change through both prefetch entry points, the policy resolver, the manifest projection, and all four test files. I also ran the linked test suites (339/339 pass) and Verdict: No blocking issues. The implementation is correct and well-scoped. Key things I verified:
Two non-blocking observations:
|
Performance benchmarksCompared 0 improved · 0 regressed · 6 within ±1.5%
View detailed results and traces 🟢 improvement · 🔴 regression · ⚫ change below 1.5% · paired base/head |
|
/bigbonk review for issues |
Review: prefetch root-param segment treesI re-reviewed the current head ( VerdictNo blocking issues. The change is correct and well-scoped. The two-stage What I verified
Note on the prior review
Non-blocking observation
|
|
Review posted to PR #2856. SummaryI reviewed PR #2856 (fix(app-router): prefetch root-param segment trees) at its current head ( Verdict: No blocking issues. The implementation is correct and well-scoped. Key things I verified:
Notable findings beyond the prior
|
|
/bigbonk review for issues |
|
Backlog mapping for Actions run |
|
@james-elicx Bonk workflow was cancelled. View workflow run · To retry, trigger Bonk again. |
|
/bigbonk review for issues |
Review: prefetch root-param segment trees (head
|
|
Review posted to PR #2856. SummaryI reviewed PR #2856 at its current head ( Verdict: No blocking issues. The implementation is correct and well-scoped. Key findings:
Two minor non-blocking notes (a |
…-segment-prefetch-current # Conflicts: # packages/vinext/src/shims/internal/app-route-prefetch-policy.ts # packages/vinext/src/shims/link.tsx
|
/bigbonk review for issues |
Review: prefetch root-param segment trees (head
|
|
Review posted to PR #2856. SummaryI reviewed PR #2856 (fix(app-router): prefetch root-param segment trees) at the current head ( Verdict: No blocking issues. The implementation is correct and well-scoped. Beyond confirming the prior reviews, I independently verified some things they didn't spell out:
Two minor non-blocking notes (the |
Summary
/_treebefore requesting the concrete/__PAGE__payload<Link>and imperativerouter.prefetch(), while preserving loading-shell behavior when Cache Components is disabledCurrent-main evidence
Fresh baseline on
99623542dfailed 0/1 at the first/aaaprefetch because the response never containedRoot param page content - param: aaa.PR #2463 was inspected only for historical context. Its July 1 head is conflicting and substantially behind current main, with no current exact-target proof, so this implementation was rebuilt against the current route-tree and prefetch-cache architecture rather than reviving or stacking that branch.
Validation
REPO=\"$(pwd)\" NEXTJS_DIR=\"/Users/jamesanderson/Developer/vinext/.nextjs-ref\" ./scripts/run-targeted-nextjs-e2e.sh test/e2e/app-dir/segment-cache/vary-params/root-params-segment-prefetch.test.ts— 1/1 passedPLAYWRIGHT_PROJECT=app-router-chrome-browser-specific pnpm run test:e2e -- tests/e2e/app-router/nextjs-compat/root-params-segment-prefetch.browser.spec.ts— 1/1 passedvp test run tests/entry-templates.test.ts tests/link.test.ts tests/link-navigation.test.ts tests/prefetch-cache.test.ts tests/app-route-tree-prefetch.test.ts— 339/339 passedvp check— passedTwo independent review findings were addressed before opening: Cache Components disabled-mode gating and
router.prefetch()parity. Final rereview found no remaining issues.