Skip to content

meta: enable turbopack on static mode #8000

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ovflowd
Copy link
Member

@ovflowd ovflowd commented Jul 20, 2025

This PR enables Turbopack on Static Export + upgrades to Next.js 15.4.2

@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 20, 2025 13:41
@ovflowd ovflowd requested review from a team as code owners July 20, 2025 13:41
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jul 20, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview Jul 20, 2025 6:57pm

Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This PR enables Turbopack for static export builds and upgrades the Next.js framework from version 15.3.4 to 15.4.2. The change aims to improve build performance by leveraging Turbopack's faster bundling capabilities during static site generation.

  • Adds --turbo flag to the static export build command
  • Upgrades Next.js from 15.3.4 to 15.4.2
  • Updates eslint-config-next to match the Next.js version
Files not reviewed (1)
  • pnpm-lock.yaml: Language not supported

@ovflowd ovflowd added the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jul 20, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jul 20, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 20, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.06%. Comparing base (42d64f0) to head (b0c9f6d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8000      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.04%   73.06%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          95       95              
  Lines        8341     8341              
  Branches      217      217              
==========================================
+ Hits         6093     6094       +1     
+ Misses       2247     2246       -1     
  Partials        1        1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 20, 2025

Lighthouse Results

URL Performance Accessibility Best Practices SEO Report
/en 🟢 99 🟢 100 🟢 100 🔴 66 🔗
/en/about 🟢 100 🟢 97 🟢 100 🔴 58 🔗
/en/about/previous-releases 🟢 99 🟢 93 🟢 100 🔴 61 🔗
/en/download 🟢 97 🟢 100 🟢 100 🔴 66 🔗
/en/blog 🟢 100 🟢 100 🟢 96 🔴 69 🔗

@ovflowd
Copy link
Member Author

ovflowd commented Jul 20, 2025

cc @nodejs/web-infra @nodejs/nodejs-website any idea why turbopack failing on Windows?

@ovflowd ovflowd force-pushed the meta/enable-turbo-pack-deploy-and-next-15-4 branch from 84fdc58 to 87e194f Compare July 20, 2025 15:12
@ovflowd ovflowd added the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jul 20, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jul 20, 2025
@ovflowd ovflowd force-pushed the meta/enable-turbo-pack-deploy-and-next-15-4 branch from 87e194f to b0c9f6d Compare July 20, 2025 18:56
@bjohansebas bjohansebas added the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jul 21, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Jul 21, 2025
@avivkeller
Copy link
Member

@styfle this looks like a bug in Next.js? It’s seems like it’s trying to combine POSIX and Windows paths?

@ovflowd
Copy link
Member Author

ovflowd commented Jul 22, 2025

@styfle this looks like a bug in Next.js? It’s seems like it’s trying to combine POSIX and Windows paths?

@avivkeller would you mind opening a bug on Next.js's repo? I unfortunately have very little time these days 😭

@styfle
Copy link
Member

styfle commented Jul 22, 2025

Looks like this was fixed on canary here vercel/next.js#81758 and being backported here vercel/next.js#81925

Should land on stable today or tomorrow.

@avivkeller
Copy link
Member

Thank you, Steven!

@AugustinMauroy
Copy link
Member

Thanks !

@ovflowd
Copy link
Member Author

ovflowd commented Jul 22, 2025

Looks like this was fixed on canary here vercel/next.js#81758 and being backported here vercel/next.js#81925

Should land on stable today or tomorrow.

Steven is our unsung Next.js hero

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.

5 participants