Skip to content

Conversation

vicb
Copy link
Contributor

@vicb vicb commented Mar 20, 2025

It looks like the new test ("Incremental Static Regeneration with data cache") is failing and this should be fixed before merging but there is already some changes to review...

@conico974 any idea what could go wrong?

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Mar 20, 2025

Open in Stackblitz

pnpm add https://pkg.pr.new/@opennextjs/cloudflare@482

commit: f2e20db

@conico974
Copy link
Collaborator

My guess is that the cache is not properly initialized, i'll need to check that tomorrow

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Mar 21, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 7f89a6b

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@conico974 conico974 mentioned this pull request Mar 21, 2025
@conico974
Copy link
Collaborator

@vicb I think i've figured out what's going on here. The issue happen for unstable_cache, and i think it comes down to how the key are computed. It tries to fetch a different key than the one generated at build time.

Probably all coming down from this https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/9f68435d39665388995c984887562b6974c2ff98/packages/next/src/server/web/spec-extension/unstable-cache.ts#L88-L90
cb.toString() is likely different from the one generated at build time.

For fixing the e2e we could just make it revalidates at least once before actually running what we want from the test

@vicb
Copy link
Contributor Author

vicb commented Mar 21, 2025

Thanks for the investigation Nico!

@vicb
Copy link
Contributor Author

vicb commented Mar 22, 2025

@conico974 would you have time to push a fix to this branch?

@conico974
Copy link
Collaborator

@vicb Not right away, but i can do it later today

@vicb
Copy link
Contributor Author

vicb commented Mar 22, 2025

@vicb Not right away, but i can do it later today

No rush, Monday morning would be great, enjoy your weekend!

@vicb
Copy link
Contributor Author

vicb commented Mar 22, 2025

Thanks Nico!
Rebased + use aws@3.5.3

Copy link
Collaborator

@conico974 conico974 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM Thanks

@vicb
Copy link
Contributor Author

vicb commented Mar 23, 2025

Thanks for the review Nico!

@vicb vicb merged commit 78c9628 into main Mar 23, 2025
7 checks passed
@vicb vicb deleted the vicb/sync-aws branch March 23, 2025 07:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants