This adds better support for serializing class instances as Debug
values.
It adds a new marker on the object `{ "": "$P...", ... }` which
indicates which constructor's prototype to use for this object's
prototype. It doesn't encode arbitrary prototypes and it doesn't encode
any of the properties on the prototype. It might get some of the
properties from the prototype by virtue of `toString` on a `class`
constructor will include the whole class's body.
This will ensure that the instance gets the right name in logs.
Additionally, this now also invokes getters if they're enumerable on the
prototype. This lets us reify values that can only be read from native
classes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Hendrik Liebau <mail@hendrik-liebau.de>
This will provide the opt-in for using [View
Transitions](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/View_Transition_API)
in React.
View Transitions only trigger for async updates like `startTransition`,
`useDeferredValue`, Actions or `<Suspense>` revealing from fallback to
content. Synchronous updates provide an opt-out but also guarantee that
they commit immediately which View Transitions can't.
There's no need to opt-in to View Transitions at the "cause" side like
event handlers or actions. They don't know what UI will change and
whether that has an animated transition described.
Conceptually the `<ViewTransition>` component is like a DOM fragment
that transitions its children in its own isolate/snapshot. The API works
by wrapping a DOM node or inner component:
```js
import {ViewTransition} from 'react';
<ViewTransition><Component /></ViewTransition>
```
The default is `name="auto"` which will automatically assign a
`view-transition-name` to the inner DOM node. That way you can add a
View Transition to a Component without controlling its DOM nodes styling
otherwise.
A difference between this and the browser's built-in
`view-transition-name: auto` is that switching the DOM nodes within the
`<ViewTransition>` component preserves the same name so this example
cross-fades between the DOM nodes instead of causing an exit and enter:
```js
<ViewTransition>{condition ? <ComponentA /> : <ComponentB />}</ViewTransition>
```
This becomes especially useful with `<Suspense>` as this example
cross-fades between Skeleton and Content:
```js
<ViewTransition>
<Suspense fallback={<Skeleton />}>
<Content />
</Suspense>
</ViewTransition>
```
Where as this example triggers an exit of the Skeleton and an enter of
the Content:
```js
<Suspense fallback={<ViewTransition><Skeleton /></ViewTransition>}>
<ViewTransition><Content /></ViewTransition>
</Suspense>
```
Managing instances and keys becomes extra important.
You can also specify an explicit `name` property for example for
animating the same conceptual item from one page onto another. However,
best practices is to property namespace these since they can easily
collide. It's also useful to add an `id` to it if available.
```js
<ViewTransition name="my-shared-view">
```
The model in general is the same as plain `view-transition-name` except
React manages a set of heuristics for when to apply it. A problem with
the naive View Transitions model is that it overly opts in every
boundary that *might* transition into transitioning. This is leads to
unfortunate effects like things floating around when unrelated updates
happen. This leads the whole document to animate which means that
nothing is clickable in the meantime. It makes it not useful for smaller
and more local transitions. Best practice is to add
`view-transition-name` only right before you're about to need to animate
the thing. This is tricky to manage globally on complex apps and is not
compositional. Instead we let React manage when a `<ViewTransition>`
"activates" and add/remove the `view-transition-name`. This is also when
React calls `startViewTransition` behind the scenes while it mutates the
DOM.
I've come up with a number of heuristics that I think will make a lot
easier to coordinate this. The principle is that only if something that
updates that particular boundary do we activate it. I hope that one day
maybe browsers will have something like these built-in and we can remove
our implementation.
A `<ViewTransition>` only activates if:
- If a mounted Component renders a `<ViewTransition>` within it outside
the first DOM node, and it is within the viewport, then that
ViewTransition activates as an "enter" animation. This avoids inner
"enter" animations trigger when the parent mounts.
- If an unmounted Component had a `<ViewTransition>` within it outside
the first DOM node, and it was within the viewport, then that
ViewTransition activates as an "exit" animation. This avoids inner
"exit" animations triggering when the parent unmounts.
- If an explicitly named `<ViewTransition name="...">` is deep within an
unmounted tree and one with the same name appears in a mounted tree at
the same time, then both are activated as a pair, but only if they're
both in the viewport. This avoids these triggering "enter" or "exit"
animations when going between parents that don't have a pair.
- If an already mounted `<ViewTransition>` is visible and a DOM
mutation, that might affect how it's painted, happens within its
children but outside any nested `<ViewTransition>`. This allows it to
"cross-fade" between its updates.
- If an already mounted `<ViewTransition>` resizes or moves as the
result of direct DOM nodes siblings changing or moving around. This
allows insertion, deletion and reorders into a list to animate all
children. It is only within one DOM node though, to avoid unrelated
changes in the parent to trigger this. If an item is outside the
viewport before and after, then it's skipped to avoid things flying
across the screen.
- If a `<ViewTransition>` boundary changes size, due to a DOM mutation
within it, then the parent activates (or the root document if there are
no more parents). This ensures that the container can cross-fade to
avoid abrupt relayout. This can be avoided by using absolutely
positioned children. When this can avoid bubbling to the root document,
whatever is not animating is still responsive to clicks during the
transition.
Conceptually each DOM node has its own default that activates the parent
`<ViewTransition>` or no transition if the parent is the root. That
means that if you add a DOM node like `<div><ViewTransition><Component
/></ViewTransition></div>` this won't trigger an "enter" animation since
it was the div that was added, not the ViewTransition. Instead, it might
cause a cross-fade of the parent ViewTransition or no transition if it
had no parent. This ensures that only explicit boundaries perform coarse
animations instead of every single node which is really the benefit of
the View Transitions model. This ends up working out well for simple
cases like switching between two pages immediately while transitioning
one floating item that appears on both pages. Because only the floating
item transitions by default.
Note that it's possible to add manual `view-transition-name` with CSS or
`style={{ viewTransitionName: 'auto' }}` that always transitions as long
as something else has a `<ViewTransition>` that activates. For example a
`<ViewTransition>` can wrap a whole page for a cross-fade but inside of
it an explicit name can be added to something to ensure it animates as a
move when something relates else changes its layout. Instead of just
cross-fading it along with the Page which would be the default.
There's more PRs coming with some optimizations, fixes and expanded
APIs. This first PR explores the above core heuristic.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian "Sebbie" Silbermann <silbermann.sebastian@gmail.com>
Alternative to #28354.
If a client reference is one of the props being describes as part of
another error, we call toString on it, which errors.
We should error explicitly when a Symbol prop is extracted.
However, pragmatically I added the toString symbol tag even though we
don't know what the real tostring will be but we also lie about the
typeof.
We can however in addition to this give it a different description
because describing this property as an object isn't quite right.
We probably could extract the export name but that's kind of renderer
specific and I just added this shared module to Fizz which doesn't have
that which is unfortunate an consequence.
For default exports we don't have a good name of what the alias was in
the receiver. Could maybe call it "default" but for now I just call it
"client".
We only allow plain objects that can be faithfully serialized and
deserialized through JSON to pass through the serialization boundary.
It's a bit too expensive to do all the possible checks in production so
we do most checks in DEV, so it's still possible to pass an object in
production by mistake. This is currently exaggerated by frameworks
because the logs on the server aren't visible enough. Even so, it's
possible to do a mistake without testing it in DEV or just testing a
conditional branch. That might have security implications if that object
wasn't supposed to be passed.
We can't rely on only checking if the prototype is `Object.prototype`
because that wouldn't work with cross-realm objects which is
unfortunate. However, if it isn't, we can check wether it has exactly
one prototype on the chain which would catch the common error of passing
a class instance.
Just a small upgrade to keep us current and remove unused suppressions
(probably fixed by some upgrade since).
- `*` is no longer allowed and has been an alias for `any` for a while
now.
- substr is Annex B
- substring silently flips its arguments if they're in the "wrong order", which is confusing
- slice is better than sliced bread (no pun intended) and also it works the same way on Arrays so there's less to remember
---
> I'd be down to just lint and enforce a single form just for the potential compression savings by using a repeated string.
_Originally posted by @sebmarkbage in https://github.com/facebook/react/pull/26663#discussion_r1170455401_
This adds `encodeReply` to the Flight Client and `decodeReply` to the
Flight Server.
Basically, it's a reverse Flight. It serializes values passed from the
client to the server. I call this a "Reply". The tradeoffs and
implementation details are a bit different so it requires its own
implementation but is basically a clone of the Flight Server/Client but
in reverse. Either through callServer or ServerContext.
The goal of this project is to provide the equivalent serialization as
passing props through RSC to client. Except React Elements and
Components and such. So that you can pass a value to the client and back
and it should have the same serialization constraints so when we add
features in one direction we should mostly add it in the other.
Browser support for streaming request bodies are currently very limited
in that only Chrome supports it. So this doesn't produce a
ReadableStream. Instead `encodeReply` produces either a JSON string or
FormData. It uses a JSON string if it's a simple enough payload. For
advanced features it uses FormData. This will also let the browser
stream things like File objects (even though they're not yet supported
since it follows the same rules as the other Flight).
On the server side, you can either consume this by blocking on
generating a FormData object or you can stream in the
`multipart/form-data`. Even if the client isn't streaming data, the
network does. On Node.js busboy seems to be the canonical library for
this, so I exposed a `decodeReplyFromBusboy` in the Node build. However,
if there's ever a web-standard way to stream form data, or if a library
wins in that space we can support it. We can also just build a multipart
parser that takes a ReadableStream built-in.
On the server, server references passed as arguments are loaded from
Node or Webpack just like the client or SSR does. This means that you
can create higher order functions on the client or server. This can be
tokenized when done from a server components but this is a security
implication as it might be tempting to think that these are not fungible
but you can swap one function for another on the client. So you have to
basically treat an incoming argument as insecure, even if it's a
function.
I'm not too happy with the naming parity:
Encode `server.renderToReadableStream` Decode: `client.createFromFetch`
Decode `client.encodeReply` Decode: `server.decodeReply`
This is mainly an implementation details of frameworks but it's annoying
nonetheless. This comes from that `renderToReadableStream` does do some
"rendering" by unwrapping server components etc. The `create` part comes
from the parity with Fizz/Fiber where you `render` on the server and
`create` a root on the client.
Open to bike-shedding this some more.
---------
Co-authored-by: Josh Story <josh.c.story@gmail.com>
