Warn if addTransitionType is called when there are no pending Actions #32793
+50
−0
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
github-actions
bot
added
the
React Core Team
|
Comparing: 0b1a9e9...9a6e020 Critical size changesIncludes critical production bundles, as well as any change greater than 2%:
Significant size changesIncludes any change greater than 0.2%: Expand to show
|
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
addtransitiontypeswarning
branch
from
6efa3c0 to
43490af
Compare
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
addtransitiontypeswarning
branch
from
43490af to
21c9cf4
Compare
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
addtransitiontypeswarning
branch
from
21c9cf4 to
f57175d
Compare
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
addtransitiontypeswarning
branch
from
f57175d to
6177366
Compare
If it's zero, we can warn if you try to call addTransitionType.
sebmarkbage
force-pushed
the
addtransitiontypeswarning
branch
from
6177366 to
9a6e020
Compare
sebmarkbage
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2025
Stacked on #32793. This is meant to model the intended semantics of `addTransitionType` better. The previous hack just consumed all transition types when any root committed so it could steal them from other roots. Really each root should get its own set. Really each transition lane should get its own set. We can't implement the full ideal semantics yet because 1) we currently entangle transition lanes 2) we lack `AsyncContext` on the client so for async actions we can't associate a `addTransitionType` call to a specific `startTransition`. This starts by modeling Transition Types to be stored on the Transition instance. Conceptually they belong to the Transition instance of that `startTransition` they belong to. That instance is otherwise mostly just used for Transition Tracing but it makes sense that those would be able to be passed the Transition Types for that specific instance. Nested `startTransition` need to get entangled. So that this `addTransitionType` can be associated with the `setState`: ```js startTransition(() => { startTransition(() => { addTransitionType(...) }); setState(...); }); ``` Ideally we'd probably just use the same Transition instance itself since these are conceptually all part of one entangled one. But transition tracing uses multiple names and start times. Unclear what we want to do with that. So I kept separate instances but shared `types` set. Next I collect the types added during a `startTransition` to any root scheduled with a Transition. This should really be collected one set per Transition lane in a `LaneMap`. In fact, the information would already be there if Transition Tracing was always enabled because it tracks all Transition instances per lane. For now I just keep track of one set for all Transition lanes. Maybe we should only add it if a `setState` was done on this root in this particular `startTransition` call rather having already scheduled any Transition earlier. While async transitions are entangled, we don't know if there will be a startTransition+setState on a new root in the future. Therefore, we collect all transition types while this is happening and if a new root gets startTransition+setState they get added to that root. ```js startTransition(async () => { addTransitionType(...) await ...; setState(...); }); ```
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2025
…#32793) Stacked on #32792. It's tricky to associate a specific `addTransitionType` call to a specific `startTransition` call because we don't have `AsyncContext` in browsers yet. However, we can keep track if there are any async transitions running at all, and if not, warn. This should cover most cases. This also errors when inside a React render which might be a legit way to associate a Transition Type to a specific render (e.g. based on props changing) but we want to be a more conservative about allowing that yet. If we wanted to support calling it in render, we might want to set which Transition object is currently rendering but it's still tricky if the render has `async function` components. So it might at least be restricted to sync components (like Hooks). DiffTrain build for [deca965](deca965)
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.
Stacked on #32792.
It's tricky to associate a specific
addTransitionTypecall to a specificstartTransitioncall because we don't haveAsyncContextin browsers yet. However, we can keep track if there are any async transitions running at all, and if not, warn. This should cover most cases.This also errors when inside a React render which might be a legit way to associate a Transition Type to a specific render (e.g. based on props changing) but we want to be a more conservative about allowing that yet. If we wanted to support calling it in render, we might want to set which Transition object is currently rendering but it's still tricky if the render has
async functioncomponents. So it might at least be restricted to sync components (like Hooks).