-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 218
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
support backend hmr #277
support backend hmr #277
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks promising! Curious to get @versecafe's thoughts here
plugins: [ | ||
react(), | ||
// reload on backend change | ||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need this on the client, to reload the websocket connection?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this should just be reloading the ws on the client whenever the API rebuilds in dev mode which is needed otherwise it's connected to a nonexistent session and breaks but @swk777 correct me if i'm wrong on that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this should just be reloading the ws on the client whenever the API rebuilds in dev mode which is needed otherwise it's connected to a nonexistent session and breaks but @swk777 correct me if i'm wrong on that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's what I assume. I would be ok with this as a stop-gap but the better solution here is for the client side websocket client to re-establish connections when the connection is closed. Robust websocket clients use a combination of heartbeats and onclose listeners to attempt reconnect with a backoff strategy.
For now I'm ok to merge this but I would like to comment and/or file an issue to capture this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is already some retry logic inside of the client, but I think this is retrying to send a message if it fails, so maybe it doesn't handle this case properly.
https://github.com/srcbookdev/srcbook/blob/main/packages/web/src/clients/websocket/client.ts#L10-L11
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@versecafe is right, and as @benjreinhart mentioned, this approach is indeed better. I’ll work on implementing this later.
Another point that deserves attention is that in the current design, the cellId is randomly generated, which changes after a reload. As a result, cell operations cannot be continued seamlessly across hmr without reload.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a good point, we need to fix those.
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ | |||
"isolatedModules": true, | |||
"useDefineForClassFields": true, | |||
"lib": ["es2022", "DOM", "DOM.Iterable"], | |||
"module": "Preserve", | |||
"module": "esnext", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain this change? cc @versecafe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@benjreinhart there shouldn't be a huge difference between esnext and preserve but removing preserve allows for some small transformations in tsc for cleaning things up, this should be a fine change and even make things easier but does mean a test to make sure the full bundled version is resolving correctly needs to be done to prevent a mishap like the 0.0.1 release bug we had
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sweet, so long as it's all working with no major downsides LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @versecafe for the confirmation. I've discovered that "module: preserve" doesn't work well with vite-node watch mode. If necessary, we can consider keeping "module: esnext" specifically for the development mode @benjreinhart
This reverts commit c14ceab.
No description provided.