Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for browserslist and legacyBrowsers experimental option #36584

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
May 17, 2022

Conversation

timneutkens
Copy link
Member

@timneutkens timneutkens commented Apr 30, 2022

Implements the first part of #33227

  • Applies browserslist to JS transforms when experimental.browsersListForSwc is enabled.
  • You don't have to use browserslist, there's also legacyBrowsers: false which will be the new default in Next.js 13. See RFC: Change default JS/CSS output to target modern browsers #33227 for which browsers and why. legacyBrowsers requires browsersListForSwc: true to function until it is the default.
module.exports = {
  experimental: {
    legacyBrowsers: false,
    browsersListForSwc: true,
  }
}

I only implemented the JS part of the RFC, the CSS part should be handled in a follow-up PR.

Bug

  • Related issues linked using fixes #number
  • Integration tests added
  • Errors have helpful link attached, see contributing.md

Feature

  • Implements an existing feature request or RFC. Make sure the feature request has been accepted for implementation before opening a PR.
  • Related issues linked using fixes #number
  • Integration tests added
  • Documentation added
  • Telemetry added. In case of a feature if it's used or not.
  • Errors have helpful link attached, see contributing.md

Documentation / Examples

  • Make sure the linting passes by running yarn lint

Implements vercel#33227

- Applies browserslist to JS transforms
- You don't have to use browserslist, there's also `legacyBrowsers: false` which will be the new default in Next.js 13. See vercel#33227 for which browsers and why.

```
module.exports = {
  experimental: {
    legacyBrowsers: false
  }
}
```
@ijjk

This comment was marked as outdated.

@ijjk
Copy link
Member

ijjk commented Apr 30, 2022

Stats from current PR

Default Build (Increase detected ⚠️)
General Overall increase ⚠️
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
buildDuration 15.7s 15.7s -63ms
buildDurationCached 6.5s 6.6s ⚠️ +104ms
nodeModulesSize 478 MB 478 MB ⚠️ +2.78 kB
Page Load Tests Overall increase ✓
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
/ failed reqs 0 0
/ total time (seconds) 3.773 3.748 -0.02
/ avg req/sec 662.63 667 +4.37
/error-in-render failed reqs 0 0
/error-in-render total time (seconds) 1.201 1.179 -0.02
/error-in-render avg req/sec 2081.7 2120.92 +39.22
Client Bundles (main, webpack)
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
925.HASH.js gzip 179 B 179 B
framework-HASH.js gzip 42 kB 42 kB
main-HASH.js gzip 28.7 kB 28.7 kB
webpack-HASH.js gzip 1.44 kB 1.44 kB
Overall change 72.4 kB 72.4 kB
Legacy Client Bundles (polyfills)
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
polyfills-HASH.js gzip 31 kB 31 kB
Overall change 31 kB 31 kB
Client Pages
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
_app-HASH.js gzip 1.36 kB 1.36 kB
_error-HASH.js gzip 193 B 193 B
amp-HASH.js gzip 308 B 308 B
css-HASH.js gzip 327 B 327 B
dynamic-HASH.js gzip 2.7 kB 2.7 kB
head-HASH.js gzip 359 B 359 B
hooks-HASH.js gzip 920 B 920 B
image-HASH.js gzip 5.71 kB 5.71 kB
index-HASH.js gzip 263 B 263 B
link-HASH.js gzip 2.65 kB 2.65 kB
routerDirect..HASH.js gzip 320 B 320 B
script-HASH.js gzip 391 B 391 B
withRouter-HASH.js gzip 318 B 318 B
85e02e95b279..7e3.css gzip 107 B 107 B
Overall change 15.9 kB 15.9 kB
Client Build Manifests
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
_buildManifest.js gzip 458 B 458 B
Overall change 458 B 458 B
Rendered Page Sizes
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
index.html gzip 532 B 532 B
link.html gzip 544 B 544 B
withRouter.html gzip 527 B 527 B
Overall change 1.6 kB 1.6 kB

Default Build with SWC (Decrease detected ✓)
General Overall increase ⚠️
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
buildDuration 18.1s 18.4s ⚠️ +287ms
buildDurationCached 6.5s 6.5s ⚠️ +55ms
nodeModulesSize 478 MB 478 MB ⚠️ +2.78 kB
Page Load Tests Overall decrease ⚠️
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
/ failed reqs 0 0
/ total time (seconds) 3.755 3.748 -0.01
/ avg req/sec 665.77 667.06 +1.29
/error-in-render failed reqs 0 0
/error-in-render total time (seconds) 1.184 1.196 ⚠️ +0.01
/error-in-render avg req/sec 2111.35 2090.6 ⚠️ -20.75
Client Bundles (main, webpack)
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
925.HASH.js gzip 178 B 178 B
framework-HASH.js gzip 42.7 kB 42.7 kB
main-HASH.js gzip 29.2 kB 29.2 kB
webpack-HASH.js gzip 1.45 kB 1.45 kB
Overall change 73.5 kB 73.5 kB
Legacy Client Bundles (polyfills)
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
polyfills-HASH.js gzip 31 kB 31 kB
Overall change 31 kB 31 kB
Client Pages
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
_app-HASH.js gzip 1.35 kB 1.35 kB
_error-HASH.js gzip 179 B 179 B
amp-HASH.js gzip 311 B 311 B
css-HASH.js gzip 324 B 324 B
dynamic-HASH.js gzip 2.89 kB 2.89 kB
head-HASH.js gzip 357 B 357 B
hooks-HASH.js gzip 920 B 920 B
image-HASH.js gzip 5.8 kB 5.8 kB
index-HASH.js gzip 261 B 261 B
link-HASH.js gzip 2.77 kB 2.77 kB
routerDirect..HASH.js gzip 322 B 322 B
script-HASH.js gzip 392 B 392 B
withRouter-HASH.js gzip 317 B 317 B
85e02e95b279..7e3.css gzip 107 B 107 B
Overall change 16.3 kB 16.3 kB
Client Build Manifests
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
_buildManifest.js gzip 457 B 457 B
Overall change 457 B 457 B
Rendered Page Sizes
vercel/next.js canary timneutkens/next.js add/legacybrowsers-rfc Change
index.html gzip 532 B 532 B
link.html gzip 547 B 547 B
withRouter.html gzip 529 B 529 B
Overall change 1.61 kB 1.61 kB
Commit: 79a2da5

Copy link
Contributor

@SukkaW SukkaW left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't it confusing that while swc / babel does transform the modern syntax without including the corresponding polyfill?

E.g. If I set my browserslists to Chrome > 64 and use Promise.allSettled in my code. I would be expecting the corresponding polyfill should be included because Promise.allSettled is only supported since Chrome 76.

@timneutkens
Copy link
Member Author

Isn't it confusing that while swc / babel does transform the modern syntax without including the corresponding polyfill?

E.g. If I set my browserslists to Chrome > 64 and use Promise.allSettled in my code. I would be expecting the corresponding polyfill should be included because Promise.allSettled is only supported since Chrome 76.

Next.js has 2 sets of polyfills that are loaded which are based on module/nomodule support. In case of Promise.allSettled I think it should be added to next-polyfill-module as it's a common feature.

@SukkaW
Copy link
Contributor

SukkaW commented Apr 30, 2022

Isn't it confusing that while swc / babel does transform the modern syntax without including the corresponding polyfill?
E.g. If I set my browserslists to Chrome > 64 and use Promise.allSettled in my code. I would be expecting the corresponding polyfill should be included because Promise.allSettled is only supported since Chrome 76.

Next.js has 2 sets of polyfills that are loaded which are based on module/nomodule support. In case of Promise.allSettled I think it should be added to next-polyfill-module as it's a common feature.

IMHO it is a really bad idea. With the ECMAScript rolling out a new spec every year, the size of the next-polyfill-module will continuously increase. And how can you tell whether an ECMAScript feature is commonly used by a Next.js user or not? E.g. I use Object.fromEntries in my project but Next.js refuses to add it to the polyfill because it will impact the size of the next-polyfill-module (And it really confuses people as they believe Next.js is full ES2019 compatible. And that's why I create #36426, an Object.fromEntries polyfill within 122 bytes).

And what happened to those who set browserlists to chrome > 100? Maybe they don't want any polyfill and transformation at all, maybe they are just prototyping an idea with SSG/SSR, but they still need to include next-plyfill-module in their main bundle.

@timneutkens
Copy link
Member Author

timneutkens commented Apr 30, 2022

@SukkaW the polyfill bundle is not the subject of the RFC #33227, the RFC only covers changing the defaults for transforming JS/CSS and not the polyfilling behavior, hence why it's not covered in this PR. Feel free to open a new RFC to talk about changing the defaults for polyfilling with the points mentioned. E.g. a RFC to change polyfilling based on the browserslist configuration could be considered a way to go after these changes land. There's a bunch of historical context / reasons why we went with the module/nomodule polyfill bundles approach over having Babel inject core-js polyfills. For example that it actually reduced bundle size for all applications when it was introduced so dismissing it as "a really bad idea" is not really constructive. Here's the data on size impact for all apps by default: #10212.

@SukkaW
Copy link
Contributor

SukkaW commented Apr 30, 2022

For example that it actually reduced bundle size for all applications when it was introduced so dismissing it as "a really bad idea" is not really constructive.

The reason behind the final bundle size reduction is because it is not how core-js works. core-js not only provides a polyfill for the unsupported features but also fixes bugs for modern browsers' wrong implementation.

For instance, core-js provided a workaround for a critical bug about Array.prototype.reduce introduced in Chrome 80-82: https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/ce52fdc735c5c809c9e85b2072f92d41b5a3885a/packages/core-js/modules/es.array.reduce.js

And another example, core-js provides a workaround for a critical bug about Array.prototype.reverse introduced in Safari 12:
https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/fcbc2c878535b277f840997ab8ee819efd677888/packages/core-js/modules/es.array.reverse.js

And another example, core-js provides a workaround for a wrong implementation of Reflect.set on Edge 17-18: https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/191151573225fac474b4ebd7c22acc0588505d34/packages/core-js/modules/es.reflect.set.js#L38-L45

I will post a full RFC later.


Per your request, a full RFC about polyfill behavior has been posted here: #36601

@timneutkens timneutkens marked this pull request as draft May 1, 2022 20:11
@timneutkens timneutkens marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2022 13:21
Co-authored-by: JJ Kasper <jj@jjsweb.site>
@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot merged commit fe3d6b7 into vercel:canary May 17, 2022
Copy link
Member

@styfle styfle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we add docs to explain how to configure this?

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 18, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants