Edit Suspense Priority Warning Message

[lunaruan]

move 'component that triggered the update' in suspense priority warning message to the beginning of the message instead of the middle for better readability

Message after update:

Warning: The components that triggered the update: COMPONENT_NAME

The following components suspended during a user-blocking update: COMPONENT_NAME

Updates triggered by user interactions (e.g. click events) are considered user-blocking by default. 
They should not suspend. Updates that can afford to take a bit longer should be wrapped with 
`Scheduler.next` (or an equivalent abstraction). This typically includes any update that shows new 
content, like a navigation.

[sizebot]

No significant bundle size changes to report.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS

[acdlite]

Here's my suggested text:

The following components triggered a user-blocking update:

  ParentComponentThatUpdated

that was then suspended by:

  ComponentThatDependsOnNetworkData, AnotherOneOfThose, AndAnother

The fix is to split the update into multiple parts: a user-blocking update to
provide immediate feedback, and another update that triggers the bulk of
the changes.

Refer to the documentation for useSuspenseTransition to learn how to implement
this pattern.

[acdlite]

If it was triggered by the root, then the message should be:

A user-blocking update was suspended by:

  ComponentThatDependsOnNetworkData, AnotherOneOfThose, AndAnother

The fix is to split the update into multiple parts: a user-blocking update to
provide immediate feedback, and another update that triggers the bulk of
the changes.

Refer to the documentation for useSuspenseTransition to learn how to implement
this pattern.

and we'll add a separate warning inside ReactDOM.render et al, as discussed previously.

[acdlite]

Nice, thanks! Probably isn't the last time we'll bikeshed this message before releasing :D

[nuragic]

@acdlite @lunaruan 👋 👀 I'm getting this message but I can't find any reference to useSuspenseTransition... any tips? Thanks!

[gaearon]

Are you using Concurrent Mode as an unstable API? It’s not officially supported.

[nuragic]

@gaearon I know it's unstable yet, but we're using it already and it's good enough as far as we can see... we have some use case in which it improved performance a lot. Just wondering if I can find any reference about this warning, orherwise it's fine... I'll wait :)