Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support sync thenables for lazy() #14626

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 18, 2019
Merged

Support sync thenables for lazy() #14626

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 18, 2019

Conversation

gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator

@gaearon gaearon commented Jan 18, 2019

Why don't we? Currently they fail with a confusing error because of a race condition (status gets set to resolved but then the result gets overwritten by the next line). This should fix it.

I figured this might be useful for testing. See enzymejs/enzyme#1917 (comment). It's awkward that people look for workarounds like waitForLazyLoaded in a synchronous environment. Supporting sync thenables could be a nice solution to that.

Copy link
Collaborator

@acdlite acdlite left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah we should do this but let's avoid the redundant commit

</Suspense>,
);

expect(ReactTestRenderer).toHaveYielded(['Loading...', 'Hi']);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
expect(ReactTestRenderer).toHaveYielded(['Loading...', 'Hi']);
expect(ReactTestRenderer).toHaveYielded(['Hi']);

lazyComponent._result = thenable;
// Don't race with a sync thenable
if (lazyComponent._status === Pending) {
lazyComponent._result = thenable;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alt suggestion:

// Check if it resolved synchronously
if (lazyComponent._status === Resolved) {
  return lazyComponent._result;
}

Since if it's already resolved we don't need to throw the thenable

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aaaah. That's why it had the loading state. Thanks.

@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ export function readLazyComponentType<T>(lazyComponent: LazyComponent<T>): T {
lazyComponent._status = Pending;
const ctor = lazyComponent._ctor;
const thenable = ctor();
lazyComponent._result = thenable;
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is still needed because we read thenable from lazyComponent._result while it's pending. If we keep the assignment, it will overwrite sync thenables. But if we remove it at all, we will throw null instead of thenable. This fixes both cases.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You still need the assignment, but I don't think you need to move it up here. If you keep it right after the early return branch you added on line 78-80, then there's always a single assignment.

if (lazyComponent._status === Resolved) {
  return lazyComponent._result;
}
lazyComponent._result = thenable;
throw thenable;

// Check if it resolved synchronously
if (lazyComponent._status === Resolved) {
return lazyComponent._result;
}
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could also do the same for failure. But doesn't seem worth the extra code to me. Could be a recursive call but then there's more risk of messing it up and going into a stack overflow. Meh.

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gaearon commented Jan 18, 2019

I'll merge since this follows your suggestion.

@gaearon gaearon merged commit 9120f6c into facebook:master Jan 18, 2019
@gaearon gaearon mentioned this pull request Jan 18, 2019
13 tasks
@gaearon gaearon deleted the then-sync branch January 18, 2019 21:19
jetoneza pushed a commit to jetoneza/react that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2019
* Support sync thenables for lazy()

* Don't commit twice
@ntucker
Copy link

ntucker commented Jan 30, 2019

Does this make lazy() work in SSR?

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gaearon commented Jan 30, 2019

No, <Suspense> is still unsupported. You’d also get a hydration mismatch if your server renders everything but the client lazy loads.

n8schloss pushed a commit to n8schloss/react that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2019
* Support sync thenables for lazy()

* Don't commit twice
@suanmei
Copy link

suanmei commented Feb 19, 2019

When will it be supported for ssr?
@gaearon

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gaearon commented Feb 19, 2019

https://reactjs.org/blog/2018/11/27/react-16-roadmap.html#suspense-for-server-rendering

This was referenced Sep 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants