You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
fix interception route refresh behavior with dynamic params (vercel#64006)
### What
When triggering an interception route that has a parent with dynamic
params, and then later going to "refresh" the tree, either by calling
`router.refresh` or revalidating in a server action, the refresh action
would silently fail and the router would be in a bad state.
### Why
Because of the dependency that interception routes currently have on
`FlightRouterState` for dynamic params extraction, we need to make sure
the refetch has the full tree so that it can properly extract earlier
params. Since the refreshing logic traversed parallel routes and scoped
the refresh to that particular segment, it would skip over earlier
segments, and so when the server attempted to diff the tree, it would
return an updated tree that corresponded with the wrong segment
(`[locale]` rather than `["locale", "en", "d]`).
Separately, since a page segment might be `__PAGE__?{"locale": "en"}`
rather than just `__PAGE__`, this updates the refetch marker logic to do
a partial match on the page segment key.
### How
This keeps a reference to the root of the updated tree so that the
refresh always starts at the top. This has the side effect of
re-rendering more data when making the "stale" refetch request, but this
is necessary until we can decouple `FlightRouterState` from interception
routes.
shout-out to @steve-marmalade for helping find this bug and providing
excellent Replays to help track it down 🙏
x-ref:
- vercel#63900
<!-- 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-2986
0 commit comments