fix: No styles in client components in PRD #658
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. |
| const cssStr = cssAssets | ||
| .map((asset) => `<link rel="stylesheet" href="${asset}">`) | ||
| .join('\n'); | ||
| // HACK is this too naive to inject style code? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I wish we could inject it in rscIndexPlugin for both server & client styles.
(hmm, we might consider about re-architecture at some point, for code-splitting styles, and (vite) plugins too.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, we haveto do code-splitting at some point! Shall I now work on it and get it working with rscIndexPlugin?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall I now work on it and get it working with rscIndexPlugin?
Is it possible for the current architecture?
It would be nice if there's a less-hacky way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure I'll try my best, I'll get back to you soon!
But if we want to do a release, I think let's merge it and tackle it later (maybe in the re-arch)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(re-arch won't be soon.)
Yeah, if there's a better way, we would like to have it now. I plan to merge it next week.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Took a look, the emitted css files are emitted in the client bundle phase which is the last phase, while rscIndexPlugin happens at the same time or even before in the buildSsrBundle phase.
I don't know if it's possible to bring the client bundle before ssr! But it's not ideal anyway. Wdyt? maybe we should skip it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it may require one more viteBuild step, which is not very good because it will make it slower.
I think the best is to send <link> tag in the RSC payload. But, it will require new technique (it's more work and different from re-arch I said above. It's more related with code-splitting.)
Thanks for your investigation. Let's merge this for now.
Partially resolves #651