Share request resolving logic between http and update servers #3597
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
9 Ignored Deployments
|
|
Co-authored-by: Alex Kirszenberg <alex.kirszenberg@vercel.com>
alexkirsz
force-pushed
the
alexkirsz/web-530-next-routing-rewrite-doesnt-extract
branch
from
668c10a
to
614083b
Compare
Benchmark for 2451ecd
Click to view full benchmark
|
sokra
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2023
sokra
deleted the
alexkirsz/web-530-next-routing-rewrite-doesnt-extract
branch
jridgewell
reviewed
Feb 2, 2023
timneutkens
pushed a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2023
…49736102+kodiakhq[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> # New Features - vercel/turborepo#3540 - vercel/turborepo#3549 - vercel/turborepo#3465 - vercel/turborepo#3550 - vercel/turborepo#3495 - vercel/turborepo#3624 - vercel/turborepo#3600 - vercel/turborepo#3676 - vercel/turborepo#3689 # Fixes - vercel/turborepo#3437 - vercel/turborepo#3542 - vercel/turborepo#3531 - vercel/turborepo#3552 - vercel/turborepo#3551 - vercel/turborepo#3597 - vercel/turborepo#3644 - vercel/turborepo#3623 - vercel/turborepo#3634 - vercel/turborepo#3574 - vercel/turborepo#3673 - vercel/turborepo#3675 - vercel/turborepo#3723 - vercel/turborepo#3677 - vercel/turborepo#3717 - vercel/turborepo#3701 # Performance Improvements - vercel/turborepo#3361 - vercel/turborepo#3619 --------- Co-authored-by: kodiakhq[bot] <49736102+kodiakhq[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
jridgewell
added a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 10, 2023
…/turborepo#3597) With the addition of the Next.js routing layer at the root of our content sources, we need the update server to also be able to follow Next.js rewrites, like the HTTP server. This requires the following: * Rewrites need to be able to indicate a source where to "resume" after rewriting. Otherwise, we would enter an infinite loop of the Next.js layer rewriting to the Next.js layer. * The resolving logic from `process_request_with_content_source` needs to be extracted into its own function, so it may be called both from the HTTP server (which expects fully resolved `ReadRef`s) and the update server (which needs a `VersionedContentVc`): this is where `resolve_source_request` comes in. Co-authored-by: Justin Ridgewell <justin@ridgewell.name>
sokra
pushed a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 13, 2023
…/turborepo#3597) With the addition of the Next.js routing layer at the root of our content sources, we need the update server to also be able to follow Next.js rewrites, like the HTTP server. This requires the following: * Rewrites need to be able to indicate a source where to "resume" after rewriting. Otherwise, we would enter an infinite loop of the Next.js layer rewriting to the Next.js layer. * The resolving logic from `process_request_with_content_source` needs to be extracted into its own function, so it may be called both from the HTTP server (which expects fully resolved `ReadRef`s) and the update server (which needs a `VersionedContentVc`): this is where `resolve_source_request` comes in. Co-authored-by: Justin Ridgewell <justin@ridgewell.name>
ForsakenHarmony
pushed a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2024
…/turborepo#3597) With the addition of the Next.js routing layer at the root of our content sources, we need the update server to also be able to follow Next.js rewrites, like the HTTP server. This requires the following: * Rewrites need to be able to indicate a source where to "resume" after rewriting. Otherwise, we would enter an infinite loop of the Next.js layer rewriting to the Next.js layer. * The resolving logic from `process_request_with_content_source` needs to be extracted into its own function, so it may be called both from the HTTP server (which expects fully resolved `ReadRef`s) and the update server (which needs a `VersionedContentVc`): this is where `resolve_source_request` comes in. Co-authored-by: Justin Ridgewell <justin@ridgewell.name>
ForsakenHarmony
pushed a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2024
…/turborepo#3597) With the addition of the Next.js routing layer at the root of our content sources, we need the update server to also be able to follow Next.js rewrites, like the HTTP server. This requires the following: * Rewrites need to be able to indicate a source where to "resume" after rewriting. Otherwise, we would enter an infinite loop of the Next.js layer rewriting to the Next.js layer. * The resolving logic from `process_request_with_content_source` needs to be extracted into its own function, so it may be called both from the HTTP server (which expects fully resolved `ReadRef`s) and the update server (which needs a `VersionedContentVc`): this is where `resolve_source_request` comes in. Co-authored-by: Justin Ridgewell <justin@ridgewell.name>
ForsakenHarmony
pushed a commit
to vercel/next.js
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2024
…/turborepo#3597) With the addition of the Next.js routing layer at the root of our content sources, we need the update server to also be able to follow Next.js rewrites, like the HTTP server. This requires the following: * Rewrites need to be able to indicate a source where to "resume" after rewriting. Otherwise, we would enter an infinite loop of the Next.js layer rewriting to the Next.js layer. * The resolving logic from `process_request_with_content_source` needs to be extracted into its own function, so it may be called both from the HTTP server (which expects fully resolved `ReadRef`s) and the update server (which needs a `VersionedContentVc`): this is where `resolve_source_request` comes in. Co-authored-by: Justin Ridgewell <justin@ridgewell.name>
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.
With the addition of the Next.js routing layer at the root of our content sources, we need the update server to also be able to follow Next.js rewrites, like the HTTP server.
This requires the following:
process_request_with_content_sourceneeds to be extracted into its own function, so it may be called both from the HTTP server (which expects fully resolvedReadRefs) and the update server (which needs aVersionedContentVc): this is whereresolve_source_requestcomes in.