Skip to content

test(cloudflare): prove browser reuse of warmed RSC variants - #3030

Closed
james-elicx wants to merge 1 commit into
codex/rsc-prewarm-rewrite-ownershipfrom
codex/rsc-prewarm-deployed-browser-proof
Closed

test(cloudflare): prove browser reuse of warmed RSC variants#3030
james-elicx wants to merge 1 commit into
codex/rsc-prewarm-rewrite-ownershipfrom
codex/rsc-prewarm-deployed-browser-proof

Conversation

@james-elicx

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Stacked on #3029.

Summary

Extend the deployed Workers cache E2E to prove the remaining browser request shapes in the RSC CDN prewarming acceptance criteria:

  • router.prefetch() reuses the prewarmed loading-shell entry, then router.push() reuses the prewarmed full RSC entry
  • an actual <Link prefetch> request to a non-cacheable dynamic route remains no-store / CF-Cache-Status: BYPASS

The same deployed test already proves Link loading-shell/full reuse from multiple source routes, full-prefetch reuse without a second request, and direct soft-navigation reuse.

Scope

Test-only. No runtime, cache, routing, deploy, or development-mode behavior changes.

Validation

  • vp check tests/e2e/cloudflare-workers/rsc-prewarm.spec.ts
  • local Playwright discovery/guard run for the deployed-only spec (1 expected skip without an HTTPS Worker)

@pkg-pr-new

pkg-pr-new Bot commented Aug 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Open in StackBlitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vinext/cloudflare@3030
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/create-vinext-app@3030
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vinext/types@3030
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/vinext@3030

commit: c615ff1

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Example Preview Production Original
app-router-cloudflare preview production
pages-router-cloudflare preview production
app-router-playground preview production original
realworld-api-rest preview production
nextra-docs-template preview production
benchmarks preview production
hackernews preview production original
workers-cache preview production
web preview production

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Performance benchmarks

Compared c615ff1 against base 2d668a6 using alternating same-runner rounds. Next.js was unchanged and skipped.

1 improved · 0 regressed · 5 within ±1.5%

Scenario Framework Baseline Current Change
Client bundle size (gzip) vinext 142.1 KB 142.2 KB ⚫ +0.0%
Client entry size (gzip) vinext 129.4 KB 129.5 KB ⚫ +0.0%
Dev server cold start vinext 3.66 s 3.70 s ⚫ +1.2%
Production build time vinext 4.37 s 4.29 s 🟢 -2.0%
RSC entry closure size (gzip) vinext 116.0 KB 116.0 KB ⚫ +0.0%
Server bundle size (gzip) vinext 197.5 KB 197.5 KB ⚫ +0.0%

View detailed results and traces

🟢 improvement · 🔴 regression · ⚫ change below 1.5% · paired base/head

@james-elicx

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Superseded by consolidated PR #3040. No commits were dropped or rewritten: #3040 now contains this exact linear commit as part of #3021#3040. Closing only the redundant draft PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant