refactor: added more strict app segment config validation#70480
Merged
refactor: added more strict app segment config validation#70480
Conversation
This was referenced Sep 25, 2024
Contributor
Author
Member
Tests Passed |
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
4858c86 to
6a4a0c0
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
1ebdb45 to
c261a85
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
6a4a0c0 to
685e01a
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
c261a85 to
026cc27
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
685e01a to
0901fa1
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
026cc27 to
c552009
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
0901fa1 to
ba16a69
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
c552009 to
998c585
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
ba16a69 to
a428fa1
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
998c585 to
1ff36ff
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
a428fa1 to
a06c4b7
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
1ff36ff to
351bbbc
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
a06c4b7 to
dfa9a4e
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
351bbbc to
3686097
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
dfa9a4e to
3789363
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
3686097 to
b8f312e
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
3789363 to
6ceba21
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
b8f312e to
3edece9
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
6ceba21 to
aa07524
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7a1b186 to
6f319f5
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config
branch
from
aa07524 to
fd8a8dd
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
6f319f5 to
80164aa
Compare
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
11 times, most recently
from
cd8c4c3 to
6f99389
Compare
ztanner
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
|
|
||
| if (staticInfo?.type === PAGE_TYPES.PAGES) { | ||
| if ( | ||
| staticInfo.config?.config?.amp === true || |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how come this is a doubly nested config?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pages/ supports the following:
export const config = { runtime: "edge" }
ztanner
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
| params: GetPageStaticInfoParams | ||
| ): Promise<PageStaticInfo> { | ||
| if (params.pageType === PAGE_TYPES.APP) { | ||
| return getAppPageStaticInfo(params) |
packages/next/src/build/entries.ts
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Reverse the layout files so we can use unshift to add them to the | ||
| // segments array. | ||
| layoutFiles.reverse() |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this part is a little strange to me, could you clarify in the comment why we do this?
ztanner
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2024
wyattjoh
force-pushed
the
refactor/app-segment-config-validation
branch
from
6f99389 to
64eae6e
Compare
kdy1
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2024
<!-- 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 # --> This increases the strictness that Next.js uses while parsing configuration from applications as well as removing some legacy options (in preparation for Next.js 15). - Errors are now printing to the console while parsing app route segment configuration, improving the reliability of the parsed configuration - **Breaking** Pages and routes in App Router will no long support `export const runtime = "experimental-edge"`, they will be required to switch to `export const runtime = "edge"`. They were the same here anyways but this stabilizes it. - Enables the possibility of parsing the configuration values from client component files via direct AST traversal.
kdy1
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2024
<!-- 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 # --> This increases the strictness that Next.js uses while parsing configuration from applications as well as removing some legacy options (in preparation for Next.js 15). - Errors are now printing to the console while parsing app route segment configuration, improving the reliability of the parsed configuration - **Breaking** Pages and routes in App Router will no long support `export const runtime = "experimental-edge"`, they will be required to switch to `export const runtime = "edge"`. They were the same here anyways but this stabilizes it. - Enables the possibility of parsing the configuration values from client component files via direct AST traversal.
devjiwonchoi
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2024
… 13.1.2 (#71081) ### Why? Although the breaking change for `export runtime = 'experimental-edge'` for App Router was recent at #70480, we did move from experimental to `edge` at #44045, and added log at #44563 (release [v13.1.2](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v13.1.2)) Therefore we lower the target codemod version to 13.1.2. --------- Co-authored-by: Jiachi Liu <inbox@huozhi.im>
eps1lon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
… 13.1.2 (#71081) ### Why? Although the breaking change for `export runtime = 'experimental-edge'` for App Router was recent at #70480, we did move from experimental to `edge` at #44045, and added log at #44563 (release [v13.1.2](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/releases/tag/v13.1.2)) Therefore we lower the target codemod version to 13.1.2. --------- Co-authored-by: Jiachi Liu <inbox@huozhi.im>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
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.
This increases the strictness that Next.js uses while parsing configuration from applications as well as removing some legacy options (in preparation for Next.js 15).
export const runtime = "experimental-edge", they will be required to switch toexport const runtime = "edge". They were the same here anyways but this stabilizes it.