[Fizz] Fix Client Render after Postpone #27905
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
This can trigger errors due to invalid injected scripts but doesn't actually fail anything else. It's a noop.
facebook-github-bot
added
CLA Signed
React Core Team
If we have already added resumable slots to a boundary we need to undo that when it errors later. Ideally, we'd remove the whole parent path in this case. If this is the only thing that postpones, we incorrectly think there's resumable slots.
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
fixclientrender
branch
from
104f0ab to
01d4d7a
Compare
gnoff
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2024
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2024
If we end up client rendering a boundary due to an error after we have already injected a postponed hole in that boundary we'll end up trying to target a missing segment. Since we never insert segments for an already errored boundary into the HTML. Normally an errored prerender wouldn't be used but if it is, such as if it was an intentional client error it triggers this case. Those should really be replaced with postpones though. This is a bit annoying since we eagerly build up the postponed path. I took the easy route here and just cleared out the suspense boundary itself from having any postponed slots. However, this still creates an unnecessary replay path along the way to the boundary. We could probably walk the path and remove any empty parent nodes. What is worse is that if this is the only thing that postponed, we'd still generate a postponed state even though there's actually nothing to resume. Since this is a bit of an edge case already maybe it's fine. In my test I added a check for the `error` event on `window` since this error only surfaces by throwing an ignored error. We should really do that globally for all tests. Our tests should fail by default if there's an error logged to the window. DiffTrain build for [f9dddcb](f9dddcb)
acdlite
added a commit
to acdlite/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2024
Includes a fix for useOptimistic. React upstream changes: - facebook/react#27936 - facebook/react#27924 - facebook/react#27930 - facebook/react#27923 - facebook/react#27922 - facebook/react#27917 - facebook/react#27916 - facebook/react#27918 - facebook/react#27919 - facebook/react#27914 - facebook/react#27911 - facebook/react#27909 - facebook/react#27907 - facebook/react#27906 - facebook/react#27905
acdlite
added a commit
to acdlite/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2024
Includes a fix for useOptimistic. React upstream changes: - facebook/react#27936 - facebook/react#27924 - facebook/react#27930 - facebook/react#27923 - facebook/react#27922 - facebook/react#27917 - facebook/react#27916 - facebook/react#27918 - facebook/react#27919 - facebook/react#27914 - facebook/react#27911 - facebook/react#27909 - facebook/react#27907 - facebook/react#27906 - facebook/react#27905
acdlite
added a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2024
Includes a fix for useOptimistic. React upstream changes: - facebook/react#27936 - facebook/react#27924 - facebook/react#27930 - facebook/react#27923 - facebook/react#27922 - facebook/react#27917 - facebook/react#27916 - facebook/react#27918 - facebook/react#27919 - facebook/react#27914 - facebook/react#27911 - facebook/react#27909 - facebook/react#27907 - facebook/react#27906 - facebook/react#27905 <!-- 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-2096
EdisonVan
pushed a commit
to EdisonVan/react
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2024
If we end up client rendering a boundary due to an error after we have already injected a postponed hole in that boundary we'll end up trying to target a missing segment. Since we never insert segments for an already errored boundary into the HTML. Normally an errored prerender wouldn't be used but if it is, such as if it was an intentional client error it triggers this case. Those should really be replaced with postpones though. This is a bit annoying since we eagerly build up the postponed path. I took the easy route here and just cleared out the suspense boundary itself from having any postponed slots. However, this still creates an unnecessary replay path along the way to the boundary. We could probably walk the path and remove any empty parent nodes. What is worse is that if this is the only thing that postponed, we'd still generate a postponed state even though there's actually nothing to resume. Since this is a bit of an edge case already maybe it's fine. In my test I added a check for the `error` event on `window` since this error only surfaces by throwing an ignored error. We should really do that globally for all tests. Our tests should fail by default if there's an error logged to the window.
bigfootjon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2024
If we end up client rendering a boundary due to an error after we have already injected a postponed hole in that boundary we'll end up trying to target a missing segment. Since we never insert segments for an already errored boundary into the HTML. Normally an errored prerender wouldn't be used but if it is, such as if it was an intentional client error it triggers this case. Those should really be replaced with postpones though. This is a bit annoying since we eagerly build up the postponed path. I took the easy route here and just cleared out the suspense boundary itself from having any postponed slots. However, this still creates an unnecessary replay path along the way to the boundary. We could probably walk the path and remove any empty parent nodes. What is worse is that if this is the only thing that postponed, we'd still generate a postponed state even though there's actually nothing to resume. Since this is a bit of an edge case already maybe it's fine. In my test I added a check for the `error` event on `window` since this error only surfaces by throwing an ignored error. We should really do that globally for all tests. Our tests should fail by default if there's an error logged to the window. DiffTrain build for commit f9dddcb.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
If we end up client rendering a boundary due to an error after we have already injected a postponed hole in that boundary we'll end up trying to target a missing segment. Since we never insert segments for an already errored boundary into the HTML. Normally an errored prerender wouldn't be used but if it is, such as if it was an intentional client error it triggers this case. Those should really be replaced with postpones though.
This is a bit annoying since we eagerly build up the postponed path. I took the easy route here and just cleared out the suspense boundary itself from having any postponed slots. However, this still creates an unnecessary replay path along the way to the boundary. We could probably walk the path and remove any empty parent nodes.
What is worse is that if this is the only thing that postponed, we'd still generate a postponed state even though there's actually nothing to resume. Since this is a bit of an edge case already maybe it's fine.
In my test I added a check for the
errorevent onwindowsince this error only surfaces by throwing an ignored error. We should really do that globally for all tests. Our tests should fail by default if there's an error logged to the window.