Stacked on #33482.
There's a flaw with getting information from the execution context of
the ping. For the soft-deprecated "throw a promise" technique, this is a
bit unreliable because you could in theory throw the same one multiple
times. Similarly, a more fundamental flaw with that API is that it
doesn't allow for tracking the information of Promises that are already
synchronously able to resolve.
This stops tracking the async debug info in the case of throwing a
Promise and only when you render a Promise. That means some loss of data
but we should just warn for throwing a Promise anyway.
Instead, this also adds support for tracking `use()`d thenables and
forwarding `_debugInfo` from then. This is done by extracting the info
from the Promise after the fact instead of in the resolve so that it
only happens once at the end after the pings are done.
This also supports passing the same Promise in multiple places and
tracking the debug info at each location, even if it was already
instrumented with a synchronous value by the time of the second use.
Previously you weren't guaranteed to have only advancing time entries,
you could jump back in time, but now it omits unnecessary duplicates and
clamps automatically if you emit a previous time entry to enforce
forwards order only.
The reason I didn't do this originally is because `await` can jump in
the order because we're trying to encode a graph into a flat timeline
for simplicity of the protocol and consumers.
```js
async function a() {
await fetch1();
await fetch2();
}
async function b() {
await fetch3();
}
async function foo() {
const p = a();
await b();
return p;
}
```
This can effectively create two parallel sequences:
```
--1.................----2.......--
------3......---------------------
```
This can now be flattened to either:
```
--1.................3---2.......--
```
Or:
```
------3......1......----2.......--
```
Depending on which one we visit first. Regardless, information is lost.
I'd say that the second one is worse encoding of this scenario because
it pretends that we weren't waiting for part of the timespan that we
were. To solve this I think we should probably make `emitAsyncSequence`
create a temporary flat list and then sort it by start time before
emitting.
Although we weren't actually blocked since there was some CPU time that
was able to proceed to get to 3. So maybe the second one is actually
better. If we wanted that consistently we'd have to figure out what the
intersection was.
---------
Co-authored-by: Hendrik Liebau <mail@hendrik-liebau.de>
Technically the async call graph spans basically all the way back to the
start of the app potentially, but we don't want to include everything.
Similarly we don't want to include everything from previous components
in every child component. So we need some heuristics for filtering out
data.
We roughly want to be able to inspect is what might contribute to a
Suspense loading sequence even if it didn't this time e.g. due to a race
condition.
One flaw with the previous approach was that awaiting a cached promise
in a sibling that happened to finish after another sibling would be
excluded. However, in a different race condition that might end up being
used so I wanted to include an empty "await" in that scenario to have
some association from that component.
However, for data that resolved fully before the request even started,
it's a little different. This can be things that are part of the start
up sequence of the app or externally cached data. We decided that this
should be excluded because it doesn't contribute to the loading sequence
in the expected scenario. I.e. if it's cached. Things that end up being
cache misses would still be included. If you want to test externally
cached data misses, then it's up to you or the framework to simulate
those. E.g. by dropping the cache. This also helps free up some noise
since static / cached data can be excluded in visualizations.
I also apply this principle to forwarding debug info. If you reuse a
cached RSC payload, then the Server Component render time and its awaits
gets clamped to the caller as if it has zero render/await time. The I/O
entry is still back dated but if it was fully resolved before we started
then it's completely excluded.
I noticed that the ThirdPartyComponent in the fixture was showing the
wrong stack and the `"use third-party"` is in the wrong location.
<img width="628" alt="Screenshot 2025-06-06 at 11 22 11 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f0013380-d79e-4765-b371-87fd61b3056b"
/>
When creating the initial JSX inside the third party server, we should
make sure that it has no owner. In a real cross-server environment you
get this by default by just executing in different context. But since
the fixture example is inside the same AsyncLocalStorage as the parent
it already has an owner which gets transferred. So we should make sure
that were we create the JSX has no owner to simulate this.
When we then parse a null owner on the receiving side, we replace its
owner/stack with the owner/stack of the call to `createFrom...` to
connect them. This worked fine with only two environments. The bug was
that when we did this and then transferred the result to a third
environment we took the original parsed stack trace. We should instead
parse a new one from the replaced stack in the current environment.
The second bug was that the `"use third-party"` badge ends up in the
wrong place when we do this kind of thing. Because the stack of the
thing entering the new environment is the call to `createFrom...` which
is in the old environment even though the component itself executes in
the new environment. So to see if there's a change we should be
comparing the current environment of the task to the owner's environment
instead of the next environment after the task.
After:
<img width="494" alt="Screenshot 2025-06-07 at 1 13 28 AM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e2e870ba-f125-4526-a853-bd29f164cf09"
/>
Stacked on #33403.
When a Promise is coming from React such as when it's passed from
another environment, we should forward the debug information from that
environment. We already do that when rendered as a child.
This makes it possible to also `await promise` and have the information
from that instrumented promise carry through to the next render.
This is a bit tricky because the current protocol is that we have to
read it from the Promise after it resolves so it has time to be assigned
to the promise. `async_hooks` doesn't pass us the instance (even though
it has it) when it gets resolved so we need to keep it around. However,
we have to be very careful because if we get this wrong it'll cause a
memory leak since we retain things by `asyncId` and then manually listen
for `destroy()` which can only be called once a Promise is GC:ed, which
it can't be if we retain it. We have to therefore use a `WeakRef` in
case it never resolves, and then read the `_debugInfo` when it resolves.
We could maybe install a setter or something instead but that's also
heavy.
The other issues is that we don't use native Promises in
ReactFlightClient so our instrumented promises aren't picked up by the
`async_hooks` implementation and so we never get a handle to our
thenable instance. To solve this we can create a native wrapper only in
DEV.
Stacked on #33400.
<img width="1261" alt="Screenshot 2025-06-01 at 10 27 47 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a5a73ee2-49e0-4851-84ac-e0df6032efb5"
/>
This is emitted with the start/end time and stack of the "await". Which
may be different than the thing that started the I/O.
These awaits aren't quite as simple as just every await since you can
start a sequence in parallel there can actually be multiple overlapping
awaits and there can be CPU work interleaved with the await on the same
component.
```js
function getData() {
await fetch(...);
await fetch(...);
}
const promise = getData();
doWork();
await promise;
```
This has two "I/O" awaits but those are actually happening in parallel
with `doWork()`.
Since these also could have started before we started rendering this
sequence (e.g. a component) we have to clamp it so that we don't
consider awaits that start before the component.
What we're conceptually trying to convey is the time this component was
blocked due to that I/O resource. Whether it's blocked from completing
the last result or if it's blocked from issuing a waterfall request.
Stacked on #33395.
This lets us keep track of which environment this was fetched and
awaited.
Currently the IO and await is in the same environment. It's just kept
when forwarded. Once we support forwarding information from a Promise
fetched from another environment and awaited in this environment then
the await can end up being in a different environment.
There's a question of when the await is inside Flight itself such as
when you return a promise fetched from another environment whether that
should mean that the await is in the current environment. I don't think
so since the original stack trace is the best stack trace. It's only if
you `await` it in user space in this environment first that this might
happen and even then it should only be considered if there wasn't a
better await earlier or if reading from the other environment was itself
I/O.
The timing of *when* we read `environmentName()` is a little interesting
here too.
Stacked on #33394.
This lets us create async stack traces to the owner that was in context
when the I/O was started or awaited.
<img width="615" alt="Screenshot 2025-06-01 at 12 31 52 AM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6ff5a146-33d6-4a4b-84af-1b57e73047d4"
/>
This owner might not be the immediate closest parent where the I/O was
awaited.
Stacked on #33390.
The stack trace doesn't include the thing you called when calling into
ignore listed content. We consider the ignore listed content
conceptually the abstraction that you called that's interesting.
This extracts the name of the first ignore listed function that was
called from user space. For example `"fetch"`. So we can know what kind
of request this is.
This could be enhanced and tweaked with heuristics in the future. For
example, when you create a Promise yourself and call I/O inside of it
like my `delay` examples, then we use that Promise as the I/O node but
its stack doesn't have the actual I/O performed. It might be better to
use the inner I/O node in that case. E.g. `setTimeout`. Currently I pick
the name from the first party code instead - in my example `delay`.
Another case that could be improved is the case where your whole
component is third-party. In that case we still log the I/O but it has
no context about what kind of I/O since the whole stack is ignored it
just gets the component name for example. We could for example look at
the first name that is in a different package than the package name of
the ignored listed component. So if
`node_modules/my-component-library/index.js` calls into
`node_modules/mysql/connection.js` then we could use the name from the
inner.
This lets us track what data each Server Component depended on. This
will be used by Performance Track and React DevTools.
We use Node.js `async_hooks`. This has a number of downside. It is
Node.js specific so this feature is not available in other runtimes
until something equivalent becomes available. It's [discouraged by
Node.js docs](https://nodejs.org/api/async_hooks.html#async-hooks). It's
also slow which makes this approach only really viable in development
mode. At least with stack traces. However, it's really the only solution
that gives us the data that we need.
The [Diagnostic
Channel](https://nodejs.org/api/diagnostics_channel.html) API is not
sufficient. Not only is many Node.js built-in APIs missing but all
libraries like databases are also missing. Were as `async_hooks` covers
pretty much anything async in the Node.js ecosystem.
However, even if coverage was wider it's not actually showing the
information we want. It's not enough to show the low level I/O that is
happening because that doesn't provide the context. We need the stack
trace in user space code where it was initiated and where it was
awaited. It's also not each low level socket operation that we want to
surface but some higher level concept which can span a sequence of I/O
operations but as far as user space is concerned.
Therefore this solution is anchored on stack traces and ignore listing
to determine what the interesting span is. It is somewhat
Promise-centric (and in particular async/await) because it allows us to
model an abstract span instead of just random I/O. Async/await points
are also especially useful because this allows Async Stacks to show the
full sequence which is not supported by random callbacks. However, if no
Promises are involved we still to our best to show the stack causing
plain I/O callbacks.
Additionally, we don't want to track all possible I/O. For example,
side-effects like logging that doesn't affect the rendering performance
doesn't need to be included. We only want to include things that
actually block the rendering output. We also need to track which data
blocks each component so that we can track which data caused a
particular subtree to suspend.
We can do this using `async_hooks` because we can track the graph of
what resolved what and then spawned what.
To track what suspended what, something has to resolve. Therefore it
needs to run to completion before we can show what it was suspended on.
So something that never resolves, won't be tracked for example.
We use the `async_hooks` in `ReactFlightServerConfigDebugNode` to build
up an `ReactFlightAsyncSequence` graph that collects the stack traces
for basically all I/O and Promises allocated in the whole app. This is
pretty heavy, especially the stack traces, but it's because we don't
know which ones we'll need until they resolve. We don't materialize the
stacks until we need them though.
Once they end up pinging the Flight runtime, we collect which current
executing task that pinged the runtime and then log the sequence that
led up until that runtime into the RSC protocol. Currently we only
include things that weren't already resolved before we started rendering
this task/component, so that we don't log the entire history each time.
Each operation is split into two parts. First a `ReactIOInfo` which
represents an I/O operation and its start/end time. Basically the start
point where it was start. This is basically represents where you called
`new Promise()` or when entering an `async function` which has an
implied Promise. It can be started in a different component than where
it's awaited and it can be awaited in multiple places. Therefore this is
global information and not associated with a specific Component.
The second part is `ReactAsyncInfo`. This represents where this I/O was
`await`:ed or `.then()` called. This is associated with a point in the
tree (usually the Promise that's a direct child of a Component). Since
you can have multiple different I/O awaited in a sequence technically it
forms a dependency graph but to simplify the model these awaits as
flattened into the `ReactDebugInfo` list. Basically it contains each
await in a sequence that affected this part from unblocking.
This means that the same `ReactAsyncInfo` can appear in mutliple
components if they all await the same `ReactIOInfo` but the same Promise
only appears once.
Promises that are only resolved by other Promises or immediately are not
considered here. Only if they're resolved by an I/O operation. We pick
the Promise basically on the border between user space code and ignored
listed code (`node_modules`) to pick the most specific span but abstract
enough to not give too much detail irrelevant to the current audience.
Similarly, the deepest `await` in user space is marked as the relevant
`await` point.
This feature is only available in the `node` builds of React. Not if you
use the `edge` builds inside of Node.js.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian "Sebbie" Silbermann <silbermann.sebastian@gmail.com>
* Facebook -> Meta in copyright
rg --files | xargs sed -i 's#Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates.#Copyright (c) Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates.#g'
* Manual tweaks
* Copy some infra structure patterns from Flight
* Basic data structures
* Move structural nodes and instruction commands to host config
* Move instruction command to host config
In the DOM this is implemented as script tags. The first time it's emitted
it includes the function. Future calls invoke the same function.
The side of the complete boundary function in particular is unfortunately
large.
* Implement Fizz Noop host configs
This is implemented not as a serialized protocol but by-passing the
serialization when possible and instead it's like a live tree being
built.
* Implement React Native host config
This is not wired up. I just need something for the flow types since
Flight and Fizz are both handled by the isServerSupported flag.
Might as well add something though.
The principle of this format is the same structure as for HTML but a
simpler binary format.
Each entry is a tag followed by some data and terminated by null.
* Check in error codes
* Comment
* Enable prefer-const rule
Stylistically I don't like this but Closure Compiler takes advantage of
this information.
* Auto-fix lints
* Manually fix the remaining callsites
* Change demo to server
* Expose client in package.json
* Reorganize tests
We don't want unit tests but instead test how both server and clients work
together. So this merges server/client test files.
* Fill in the client implementation a bit
* Use new client in fixture
* Add Promise/Uint8Array to lint rule
I'll probably end up deleting these deps later but they're here for now.
* Add Flight Build and Unify HostFormat Config between Flight and Fizz
* Add basic resolution of models
* Add basic Flight fixture
Demonstrates the streaming protocol.
* Rename to flight-server to distinguish from the client parts
* Add Flight Client package and entry point
* Fix fixture
