Stacked on #33150.
We use `noop` functions in a lot of places as place holders. I don't
think there's any real optimizations we get from having separate
instances. This moves them to use a common instance in `shared/noop`.
This lets us track separately if something was suspended on an Action
using useActionState rather than suspended on Data.
This approach feels quite bloated and it seems like we'd eventually
might want to read more information about the Promise that suspended and
the context it suspended in. As a more general reason for suspending.
The way useActionState works in combination with the prewarming is quite
unfortunate because 1) it renders blocking to update the isPending flag
whether you use it or not 2) it prewarms and suspends the useActionState
3) then it does another third render to get back into the useActionState
position again.
Stacked on #28849, #28854, #28853. Behind a flag.
If you're following along from the side-lines. This is probably not what
you think it is.
It's NOT a way to get updates to a component over time. The
AsyncIterable works like an Iterable already works in React which is how
an Array works. I.e. it's a list of children - not the value of a child
over time.
It also doesn't actually render one component at a time. The way it
works is more like awaiting the entire list to become an array and then
it shows up. Before that it suspends the parent.
To actually get these to display one at a time, you have to opt-in with
`<SuspenseList>` to describe how they should appear. That's really the
interesting part and that not implemented yet.
Additionally, since these are effectively Async Functions and uncached
promises, they're not actually fully "supported" on the client yet for
the same reason rendering plain Promises and Async Functions aren't.
They warn. It's only really useful when paired with RSC that produces
instrumented versions of these. Ideally we'd published instrumented
helpers to help with map/filter style operations that yield new
instrumented AsyncIterables.
The way the implementation works basically just relies on unwrapThenable
and otherwise works like a plain Iterator.
There is one quirk with these that are different than just promises. We
ask for a new iterator each time we rerender. This means that upon retry
we kick off another iteration which itself might kick off new requests
that block iterating further. To solve this and make it actually
efficient enough to use on the client we'd need to stash something like
a buffer of the previous iteration and maybe iterator on the iterable so
that we can continue where we left off or synchronously iterate if we've
seen it before. Similar to our `.value` convention on Promises.
In Fizz, I had to do a special case because when we render an iterator
child we don't actually rerender the parent again like we do in Fiber.
However, it's more efficient to just continue on where we left off by
reusing the entries from the thenable state from before in that case.
This adds support in Flight for serializing four kinds of streams:
- `ReadableStream` with objects as a model. This is a single shot
iterator so you can read it only once. It can contain any value
including Server Components. Chunks are encoded as is so if you send in
10 typed arrays, you get the same typed arrays out on the other side.
- Binary `ReadableStream` with `type: 'bytes'` option. This supports the
BYOB protocol. In this mode, the receiving side just gets `Uint8Array`s
and they can be split across any single byte boundary into arbitrary
chunks.
- `AsyncIterable` where the `AsyncIterator` function is different than
the `AsyncIterable` itself. In this case we assume that this might be a
multi-shot iterable and so we buffer its value and you can iterate it
multiple times on the other side. We support the `return` value as a
value in the single completion slot, but you can't pass values in
`next()`. If you want single-shot, return the AsyncIterator instead.
- `AsyncIterator`. These gets serialized as a single-shot as it's just
an iterator.
`AsyncIterable`/`AsyncIterator` yield Promises that are instrumented
with our `.status`/`.value` convention so that they can be synchronously
looped over if available. They are also lazily parsed upon read.
We can't do this with `ReadableStream` because we use the native
implementation of `ReadableStream` which owns the promises.
The format is a leading row that indicates which type of stream it is.
Then a new row with the same ID is emitted for every chunk. Followed by
either an error or close row.
`AsyncIterable`s can also be returned as children of Server Components
and then they're conceptually the same as fragment arrays/iterables.
They can't actually be used as children in Fizz/Fiber but there's a
separate plan for that. Only `AsyncIterable` not `AsyncIterator` will be
valid as children - just like sync `Iterable` is already supported but
single-shot `Iterator` is not. Notably, neither of these streams
represent updates over time to a value. They represent multiple values
in a list.
When the server stream is aborted we also close the underlying stream.
However, closing a stream on the client, doesn't close the underlying
stream.
A couple of possible follow ups I'm not planning on doing right now:
- [ ] Free memory by releasing the buffer if an Iterator has been
exhausted. Single shots could be optimized further to release individual
items as you go.
- [ ] We could clean up the underlying stream if the only pending data
that's still flowing is from streams and all the streams have cleaned
up. It's not very reliable though. It's better to do cancellation for
the whole stream - e.g. at the framework level.
- [ ] Implement smarter Binary Stream chunk handling. Currently we wait
until we've received a whole row for binary chunks and copy them into
consecutive memory. We need this to preserve semantics when passing
typed arrays. However, for binary streams we don't need that. We can
just send whatever pieces we have so far.
The old (unstable) mechanism for suspending was to throw a promise. The
purpose of throwing is to interrupt the component's execution, and also
to signal to React that the interruption was caused by Suspense as
opposed to some other error.
A flaw is that throwing is meant to be an implementation detail — if
code in userspace catches the promise, it can lead to unexpected
behavior.
With `use`, userspace code does not throw promises directly, but `use`
itself still needs to throw something to interrupt the component and
unwind the stack.
The solution is to throw an internal error. In development, we can
detect whether the error was caught by a userspace try/catch block and
log a warning — though it's not foolproof, since a clever user could
catch the object and rethrow it later.
The error message includes advice to move `use` outside of the try/catch
block.
I did not yet implement the warning in Flight.
There are two different switch statements that we use to unwrap a
`use`-ed promise, but there really only needs to be one. This was a
factoring artifact that arose because I implemented the yieldy `status`
instrumentation thing before I implemented `use` (for promises that are
thrown directly during render, which is the old Suspense pattern that
will be superseded by `use`).
To derisk the rollout of `use`, and simplify the implementation, this
reverts the yield-to-microtasks behavior for promises that are thrown
directly (as opposed to being unwrapped by `use`).
We may add this back later. However, the plan is to deprecate throwing a
promise directly and migrate all existing Suspense code to `use`, so the
extra code probably isn't worth it.
Sebastian Markbåge
Jan Kassens
Andrew Clark