use: Don't suspend if there are pending updates #25632
Closed
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
facebook-github-bot
added
CLA Signed
React Core Team
|
Comparing: 44c4e6f...9ae639e Critical size changesIncludes critical production bundles, as well as any change greater than 2%:
Significant size changesIncludes any change greater than 0.2%: (No significant changes) |
eps1lon
reviewed
Nov 4, 2022
Comment on lines
+745
to
+755
| // Finally, React attempts to render the first update again. It also | ||
| // finishes successfully, because it was rebased on top of the update that | ||
| // hid the suspended component. | ||
| // NOTE: These this render happened to not be entangled with the previous | ||
| // one. If they had been, this update would have been included in the | ||
| // previous render, and there wouldn't be an extra one here. This could | ||
| // change if we change our entanglement heurstics. Semantically, it | ||
| // shouldn't matter, though in general we try to work on transitions in | ||
| // parallel whenever possible. So even though in this particular case, the | ||
| // extra render is unnecessary, it's a nice property that it wasn't | ||
| // entangled with the other transition. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
filled in some this/that references from my understanding. I hope this makes it easier to grasp what's happening?
Suggested change
| // Finally, React attempts to render the first update again. It also | |
| // finishes successfully, because it was rebased on top of the update that | |
| // hid the suspended component. | |
| // NOTE: These this render happened to not be entangled with the previous | |
| // one. If they had been, this update would have been included in the | |
| // previous render, and there wouldn't be an extra one here. This could | |
| // change if we change our entanglement heurstics. Semantically, it | |
| // shouldn't matter, though in general we try to work on transitions in | |
| // parallel whenever possible. So even though in this particular case, the | |
| // extra render is unnecessary, it's a nice property that it wasn't | |
| // entangled with the other transition. | |
| // Finally, React attempts to render the first update again. It also | |
| // finishes successfully, because it was rebased on top of the update that | |
| // hid the suspended component. | |
| // NOTE: The second render happened to not be entangled with the previous | |
| // one. If they had been, the second update would have been included in the | |
| // previous render, and there wouldn't be an extra render here. This could | |
| // change if we change our entanglement heurstics. Semantically, it | |
| // shouldn't matter, though in general we try to work on transitions in | |
| // parallel whenever possible. So even though in this particular case, the | |
| // extra render is unnecessary, it's a nice property that it wasn't | |
| // entangled with the other transition. |
sebmarkbage
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2022
Before suspending, check if there are other pending updates that might possibly unblock the suspended component. If so, interrupt the current render and switch to working on that. This logic was already implemented for the old "throw a Promise" Suspense but has to be replicated for `use` because it suspends the work loop much earlier. I'm getting a little anxious about the divergence between the two Suspense patterns. I'm going to look into enabling the new behavior for the old pattern so that we can unify the implementations.
acdlite
force-pushed
the
check-skipped-updates
branch
from
cb328ab
to
9ae639e
Compare
|
Closed as part of stack in #25695 |
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.
Before suspending, check if there are other pending updates that might possibly unblock the suspended component. If so, interrupt the current render and switch to working on that.
This logic was already implemented for the old "throw a Promise" Suspense but has to be replicated for
usebecause it suspends the work loop much earlier.I'm getting a little anxious about the divergence between the two Suspense patterns. I'm going to look into enabling the new behavior for the old pattern so that we can unify the implementations.