New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make CacheNodeSeedData match FlightRouterState more closely #59590
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Tests Passed |
Stats from current PRDefault BuildGeneral
Client Bundles (main, webpack)
Legacy Client Bundles (polyfills)
Client Pages
Client Build Manifests
Rendered Page Sizes
Edge SSR bundle Size
Middleware size
Next Runtimes
Diff detailsDiff for page.jsDiff too large to display Diff for 170-HASH.jsDiff too large to display Diff for app-page-exp..ntime.dev.jsDiff too large to display Diff for app-page-exp..time.prod.jsDiff too large to display Diff for app-page-tur..time.prod.jsDiff too large to display Diff for app-page-tur..time.prod.jsDiff too large to display Diff for app-page.runtime.dev.jsDiff too large to display Diff for app-page.runtime.prod.jsDiff too large to display |
When PPR is enabled, the CacheNodeSeedData and FlightRouterState contained in an RSC payload (whether it's static or dynamic) should always have the same tree structure. The only reason the two trees would ever be different is if the server partially renders with `loading.tsx`, but that behavior doesn't exist when PPR is enabled. (In that case, the CacheNodeSeedData would describe only a subset of FlightRouterState.) The behavior is already correct but to make the types a bit closer, this changes the `parallelRoutes` slot of CacheNodeSeedData to be non-nullable; if there are no children, it should be an empty object. It's not semantically important, I'm only changing it to make the types more consistent, since we typically traverse both trees in parallel. Eventually we will probably merge these into a single transport type.
acdlite
force-pushed
the
make-cachenodeseeddata-match
branch
from
December 13, 2023 17:29
b892a7e
to
1dc40f1
Compare
acdlite
requested review from
timneutkens,
ijjk,
shuding,
huozhi,
feedthejim,
ztanner and
wyattjoh
as code owners
December 13, 2023 17:35
ztanner
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2023
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When PPR is enabled, the CacheNodeSeedData and FlightRouterState contained in an RSC payload (whether it's static or dynamic) should always have the same tree structure.
The only reason the two trees would ever be different is if the server partially renders with
loading.tsx
, but that behavior doesn't exist when PPR is enabled. (In that case, the CacheNodeSeedData would describe only a subset of FlightRouterState.)The behavior is already correct but to make the types a bit closer, this changes the
parallelRoutes
slot of CacheNodeSeedData to be non-nullable; if there are no children, it should be an empty object.It's not semantically important, I'm only changing it to make the types more consistent, since we typically traverse both trees in parallel.
Eventually we will probably merge these into a single transport type.
Closes NEXT-1868