### What?
Follow-up of #53453
### Why?
Forgot to update the link in a few places
---------
Co-authored-by: Zack Tanner <zacktanner@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
This creates a monorepo for each github action and ensures they all use pnpm.
You can install and build all with the following:
```
cd .github
pnpm i
pnpm -r build
```
As we're using nodejs with latest version of 18.x on CI, there's a new behavior change of `url.fileURLToPath` that didn't join the paths as expected
locally with node 16.x or 18.16
```
/private/var/folders/mh/y8kwzkls6v3_w3_k6q384cw80000gn/T/next-install-b033b516612809c6fb0a0de77c6e50f7d7f8af34dfd3d01812b99345352dc992/node_modules/.pnpm/file+..+next-repo-7e52b07043e986127273a2d951e5c412b0dd45fb24eb34001bd372e2afff79db+packages+n_vyqu6i4c4i3efp5pqsaeaoe5s4/node_modules/next/dist/compiled/@vercel/og/noto-sans-v27-latin-regular.ttf
```
in the actions runner with node 18.17 it's
```
/tmp/next-install-8efaa47c1546bed07990d8f130decceb6536e1a36146e7885cb68e3c3dea21f7/node_modules/.pnpm/file+..+next-repo-9679355e05341947e7aa0b42c994e3ac_krcuriy4thl7zawouf7sswlrgy/node_modules/next/dist/compiled/@vercel/og/index.node.js/../noto-sans-v27-latin-regular.ttf
```
You can see that `index.node.js` is still present in the path as a folder which is unexpected
```
index.node.js/../
```
x-ref: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/actions/runs/5600417148/jobs/10242827739?pr=52790
### What?
Adding a new label comment for "please simplify reproduction".
### Why?
During triaging, a lot of time is gone into trying to isolate the actual bug being reported. Reproductions sometimes contain unrelated code - that sometimes can be the actual cause of an issue, reported as a bug in Next.js, or require third-party services, secrets, setting up databases, and other tasks that take up much of the resources before the issue can even be verified.
### How?
Similar to the `please add a complete reproduction` and `please verify canary` labels, if a maintainer adds the `please simplify reproduction` label, an automatic comment will appear on the issue, asking for a minimal reproduction
[Slack thread](https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C04DUD7EB1B/p1685527818400339)
`yarn pack` does not pack the same way that `npm pack` does. There is at least one bug with how files are treated where node_modules are ignored even inside folders defined by the files config. While this is not currently used in next.js an upcoming change will rely on it. The reason this change makes sense otherwise is we use npm to publish next and during a publish the pack from npm is used. For consistency we should use the same pack for our actions and other code that does repo setup such as `create-next-install` which is used for tests
The implementation is slightly more complicated than just replacing the pack command however. `npm pack` respects gitignore files whereas `yarn pack` does not (or at least not nested ones). For some packages the `"files"` property in package.json is set which overrides any gitignore rules however the `@next/swc` package uses a gitignore to prevent the committing of native binaries but does not use files and thus npm pack does not includes native binaries when yarn pack does. To address this the PR adds a temporary rename of the `next-swc/native/.gitignore` file which allows npm pack to mimic the yarn pack behavior. The reason I did not just add `"files"` is that this package actually publishes to many different package names on npm for each architecture and I was unsure about making changes to the package.json that would potentially affect this codepath.
In addition to those changes there are 2 `.gitignore` files that appear to be outdated and unnecessary. I removed them.
- Add some basic error handling to the link validator action.
- Avoid unnecessarily creating a new bot comment when the validation is successful.
- Only scan .mdx files modified in the current PR for broken links.
This PR migrates and adapts the [validate docs links script from `next-site`](https://github.com/vercel/front/pull/23185). This script is triggered by a GitHub action whenever a file in the `/docs` folder is updated. If broken links are found in the docs, the check fails and we post a comment on the PR with a list of broken links.
Co-authored-by: Michael Novotny <446260+manovotny@users.noreply.github.com>
Reverts vercel/next.js#51406
This pnpm bump seems to be causing lockfile issues with the react
versions which causes context issues since we need to share the same
react version in the monorepo.
This contains the original POC for `next build --turbo`. The implementation is _just enough_ to get pages building, and doesn't support the app router yet.
I'll write more details here on the implementation and what the next steps are next week.
Necessary changes on the Turbo side: https://github.com/vercel/turbo/pull/4998
### What?
Fixespnpm/pnpm#6424
### Why?
So users of Node 20 can contribute to Next.js
### How?
Upgrades pnpm with back compatibility to patch `ERR_INVALID_THIS` error.
If Node 14 support isn't necessary, I'd recommend upgrading to pnpm 8
for continued feature support and committing the lockfile.
---------
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
We publish multiple packages in parallel which can cause issues with the
prepublish only script running as turbo clearing/restoring dist caches
can causing files to be missing if a publish is in progress. We also
don't need to run these as all packages are already built prior to
publishing. This also includes fixes for release stats.
### Description
Set some environment variables that reduce size on disk and make the
build a little faster.
Also, read the toolchain from the `rust-toolchain` file, so it's not
duplicated in every workflow.
Ported over from the `turbo` repo.
Updates to re-use our build workflow so turbo remote cache is leveraged
and updates re-usable workflow reference to be the same branch instead
of main.
We decided in https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/48308 that we won't
use `turbo` when packing packages for tests.
This PR removes all code associated with that effort. The whole thing
fas behind a flag, so it shouldn't affect anything.
fix NEXT-1025
- Move span wrapping rendering closer to the user code and don't add
span when we have cache-hit
- Add `getStaticProps` span
- Add spans around API handlers (pages and app)
- Add `generateMetadata` span
- Clarify naming that we use `page` for entrypoints like
`/path/[param]/page` or `/path/[param]/layout`. And `route` for
`/path/[param]`
fix NEXT-857 ([link](https://linear.app/vercel/issue/NEXT-857))
### What?
A fork of https://github.com/github/issue-labeler that we pull in and
maintain.
### Why?
The official issue labeler had some issues which I tried to fix in PRs
and eventually got merged upstream, but the release cycle was a bit
slow, and that GitHub action had many parts we did not really need
anyway. So it makes sense to maintain it ourselves.
### How?
This PR removes the
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/.github/issue-labeler.yml
config file, which in our case is just a sublist of
https://github.com/vercel/next.js/labels anyway. Instead, we can pull in
the labels from GitHub directly and filter out those that we want to
apply to issues. This will keep things more in sync.
fix NEXT-750 ([link](https://linear.app/vercel/issue/NEXT-750))
---------
### What?
update prettier in the PR stats action
### Why?
It's outdated and can't parse syntax of the latest swc version (static
blocks)
### How?
update package.json
Not all systems have `/bin/bash` (for example NixOS).
`/usr/bin/env bash` reads the location of bash from `PATH`
<!--
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:
-->
## Bug
- [ ] Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- [ ] Integration tests added
- [ ] Errors have a helpful link attached, see
[`contributing.md`](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md)
## Feature
- [ ] Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the
feature request has been accepted for implementation before opening a
PR.
- [ ] Related issues linked using `fixes #number`
- [ ]
[e2e](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/core/testing.md#writing-tests-for-nextjs)
tests added
- [ ] Documentation added
- [ ] Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
- [ ] Errors have a helpful link attached, see
[`contributing.md`](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing.md)
## Documentation / Examples
- [ ] Make sure the linting passes by running `pnpm build && pnpm lint`
- [ ] The "examples guidelines" are followed from [our contributing
doc](https://github.com/vercel/next.js/blob/canary/contributing/examples/adding-examples.md)
Noticed while testing across CI environments that the `test-pack` handling is not-concurrent or cache safe so this removes it from being used by default and moves it behind a flag to allow further investigating later.
In CI if `test-pack` is called at the same time due to multiple concurrency it can cause the resulted archive to be corrupted so may require a form of lock to resolve in CI although locally re-using the same archive name/path isn't safe with pnpm as it won't bust the store cache and continue to leverage previous cache.
Balázs Orbán