### What
* Move missing html tags error into error overlay, from outside we don't
have to manually determine when to render a dummy component with runtime
missing tag error or error overlay.
* Add brackets `<>` to the html tags in the error
### Why
In #62815, we're having throwing an missing required error, this will
trigger another runtime error. Then when error overlay caught it through
error event listener, it will render it as an unhandled runtime error:
You will see the below message in the overlay.
```
Unhandled Runtime Error
Error: The following tas are missing...
[Error stack]
```
This error message will bring a message that the error is happened on
client during runtime, but actually we already know that is a user side
mistake which doesn't have a error trace. This couldn't hmr as you fix
the error as well.
This PR moves the rendering into error overlay that we're aware of the
errors and can render the correct html on client, with the `html` tag
attached with error id and `body` wrapping the error overlay. We tell
overlay that there're missing tags through props, let it handle
everything inside.
It can also hmr once you fix the error. One drawback is that when you
re-introduce the error, it might trigger react DOM updates exception
(`Failed to execute 'removeChild' on 'Node': The node to be removed is
not a child of this node.`) instead of the "missing tags" message again.
Besides that the HMR works properly.
Closes NEXT-2741
### What?
We now keep track of all client assets emitted for each route in
`ClientAssetMapper` and remove all issues associated with them when a
route get deleted.
Fixes#61384
Closes PACK-2487
We switched to `pnpm` for testing instead of `yarn` for e2e tests
containing customized node_modules packages, it works with
`node_modules` folder before. Rename the existing `node_modules_bak`
hack to make it easy to test with.
Previously we use `yarn` but it will clean `node_modules` folder so we
have to use another script to copy packages, it's not a required thing
now so we can test package from node_modules directly without renaming
folders locally
Closes NEXT-2496
### What?
We are experimenting with `lightningcss`. This is about replacing
`swc_css` with `lightningcss` in turbopack, and the main reason for this
is to reduce the maintenance burden.
But when I tried, it introduced several regressions, so I'm putting it
behind an experimental flag.
You can enable `lightningcss` mode for **turbopack** by adding a flag to
the next config file.
```js
/**
* @type {import('next').NextConfig}
*/
const nextConfig = {
experimental: {
useLightningcss: true,
},
}
module.exports = nextConfig
```
Note that this is only for turbopack because we were not using `swc_css`
for non-turbopack mode of next.js
x-ref:
https://vercel.slack.com/archives/C03EWR7LGEN/p1700025496732229?thread_ts=1700019629.866549&cid=C03EWR7LGEN
### Why?
We should avoid regressions.
### How?
---
turbopack PR: https://github.com/vercel/turbo/pull/6456
Closes PACK-1966
---------
Co-authored-by: Leah <github.leah@hrmny.sh>
### What
#51394 introduced a pretty strict type of return value of route type
that causing failure with `next build`.
There're few ways of writing a app route, it could contain few return
values based on the usage:
* return a `Response` or promise of it
* return `NextResponse` of promise of it, since it's extended from
`Response`, same type
* use `redirect()` or `notFound(), since it returns `never`, and the
below code is not reached, the handler itself could still return void.
e.g. using `redirect` in a `GET` route
We loosed the type so `redirect()` can be still allowed without
specifying the return value there.
Related typescript issue:
https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/16608#issuecomment-309327984
### How
* Re-enable the bail on types / build error in the app-routes tests
* Separate the tests, move runtime erroring ones to
`test/e2e/app-dir/app-routes-errors`
* Add new case to app-routes tests of mixed return value
Closes#55623
Related #55604
### What?
The team working on vercel.com reported that multiple pages were being
compiled when opening a single page. Investigated this a bit and found
it was caused by the matching logic (that also triggers compiling of
matched pages) running before middleware runs.
### How?
Removed this matcher logic, as far as I can tell it's not actually being
used. Probably a leftover from when we provided `page` as a middleware
parameter before we made middleware run in front of all resolving.
Fixes NEXT-999
Fixes NEXT-806
<!-- 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 or adding/fixing 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 #
-->
Donny/강동윤