test: enable compatible body-size cases in deploy by jamiboym · Pull Request #98911 · vercel/next.js

jamiboym · 2026-09-18T22:21:59Z

Summary

Based on #99392. Stack: #99012 → #98994 → #99392 → #98911. This PR now contains its own skipDeployment → @force-gate conversions and removal of skipped returns, with no dependency on Josh’s migration PRs. Enable only the two body-size tests confirmed passing in both deployment CI variants: a 4 MiB request with a 5 MiB Next.js buffer and a 1 MiB request with a 2 MiB buffer.

Keep the other seven tests gated and replace the migration TODOs with verified reasons:

The test deployment enforces the documented 4.5 MB Vercel payload limit. Requests of 5, 6, 10, 11, 20, and 51 MiB receive HTTP 413, independently of the Next.js buffering setting.
The 3 MiB request is accepted, but Vercel forwards the entire body instead of applying Next.js's local 2 MiB truncation.

The 5 MiB and 2 MiB suite gates are narrowed to their failing over-limit tests. All test bodies and assertions are unchanged. The redundant dev-only image exclusion is handled separately in #98908.

Verification

Restacked above test: retain deploy exclusions for local process control #99392; git range-diff confirms the body-size patch is unchanged.
Prettier and ESLint passed.
Verified test bodies and assertions are unchanged after removing the legacy deployment skips; all four force-gates attach. A collection-only check with fixture setup stubbed confirms two tests enabled and seven gated in deploy, and all nine enabled locally.
Prior reproduction on canary: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/actions/runs/35401223346/job/105783820893 and https://github.com/vercel/next.js/actions/runs/35401223346/job/105783820915 (2 passed, 7 failed in each).
Direct HTTP reproduction returned Vercel's FUNCTION_PAYLOAD_TOO_LARGE for 5 MiB with a configured 50 MiB Next.js buffer; 4 MiB succeeded.
Full suite execution remains blocked by the local installation’s missing node-fetch; bootstrap/watch builds stalled during the first-layer validation. CI must validate execution on the new stack.

github-actions · 2026-09-18T22:22:20Z

Tests Passed

Commit: a4430f5

Exercise `captureRuntimeLogs` on the suites whose exclusions are plausibly just "the log is not observable on a deployment": unhandled-rejection logging, edge response errors, edge streaming errors, and instrumentation under src. Replace `skipDeployment` with capture, drop the empty-suite returns, and poll the positive log assertions that previously assumed synchronous delivery. Three suites from the first attempt are deliberately left excluded, because they fail for reasons no amount of log collection fixes: - client-max-body-size: Vercel returns 413 above its own 4.5 MB payload limit regardless of the Next.js buffer, and forwards a 3 MiB body without applying the local 2 MiB truncation. #98911 already gates the seven affected cases individually, with reproductions. - custom-cache-handler-image: Vercel serves `/_next/image` through its own optimizer, so the custom handler never runs and the log never exists. - instrumentation-hook/register-once: `toIncludeRepeated('register-log', 1)` is a per-process invariant, and deploy aggregates logs across serverless instances that each register once. This is still an experiment. The exact-count assertion in unhandled-rejection logging is the one most likely to expose a gap in the collector's row deduplication rather than a platform difference. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

## Summary Custom-server suites depend on local server entrypoints that deploy mode does not launch. Replace their legacy `skipDeployment` exclusions and `skipped` returns with `@force-gate !deploy` and explain the dependency, while preserving their existing local mode restrictions and assertions. This covers six test files, including the custom-server sections of API body parsing and OpenTelemetry. The ordinary API JSON body-parser case remains enabled in deploy mode; only the Express pre-parsing cases are excluded. The custom-server shutdown suite also requires the runner to signal its server process and observe `after()` completion. Stack: #99012 → #98994 → #99392 → #98911. Based on #99012; #99392 separately explains local process-control exclusions. ## Verification - The two added suites passed in both webpack development and production modes: five tests in each mode. - Collection with the real gate runtime and fixture setup stubbed confirmed all five tests enabled locally, and only the ordinary API body-parser test enabled in deploy mode. Both parameterized shutdown signals are excluded in deploy. - All 24 gate-transform tests passed. Formatting and ESLint passed for the added files. - The JavaScript workspace build passed. The full bootstrap build failed in the native Rust step (`cargo metadata failed to run`). - No new deployment was created. The ordinary API body-parser case passed in the earlier deployment experiment.

## Summary Retain the deployment exclusions for two suites that require control of the local Node.js process, replacing legacy `skipDeployment` handling with explicit `@force-gate !deploy` directives: - `graceful-shutdown-next-after/next-start` starts a fresh Next.js process, sends `SIGINT` and `SIGTERM`, and checks whether `after()` callbacks finish before it exits. Vercel manages the deployed process lifecycle; the deploy test runner cannot send those signals to that process or deterministically observe its shutdown. This does not imply that Vercel lacks graceful shutdown support. - `node-cli-args` invokes Node with `--experimental-network-inspection` and checks whether that invocation starts successfully on the current Node version. Deploy mode does not execute the test's local `startCommand`, so it cannot exercise Node's handling of that CLI flag. Preserve all test bodies, including the different development/production shutdown expectations and the Node 20 rejection case. Based on #98994, with #98911 above this PR. ## Verification - The shutdown assertions passed in webpack development and production modes (both signals in each mode). - The Node CLI test passed in both modes with normal isolated installation on Node 26.10.0. An initial `NEXT_SKIP_ISOLATE=1` run could not resolve its required fixture-local `node_modules/next`; using the normal fixture installation resolved that validation setup issue. - Collection with the real gate runtime and fixture setup stubbed confirmed all three assertions enabled in dev/start and all three skipped in deploy. A syntax-tree comparison confirmed the test definitions and assertions are unchanged. - Formatting and ESLint passed. All 24 gate-transform tests passed on the same base. - The JavaScript workspace build passed. Full bootstrap remains blocked in the native Rust step (`cargo metadata failed to run`). Deploy execution was not run; local collection verifies the exclusions without deployment.

## Summary Migrate the remaining Pages Router, API route, i18n, custom route, rewrite, redirect, and error-page deployment exclusions to `@force-gate` and remove their `skipDeployment`/`skipped` control flow. This stack is rooted at canary and independent of #98430; it preserves deployment coverage already enabled on canary. The custom-app-render and client-max-body-size files covered by #98994 and #98911 are omitted. ## Verification - Compared test registration against canary in development, production, and deploy modes with test bodies and hooks disabled (Webpack). Existing active deployment assertions are preserved; development/production test selection is unchanged apart from replacing empty skip placeholders with skipped real tests. - TypeScript, Prettier, and ESLint checks passed. Registration probes use a default config for lazy predicates and do not exercise fixture setup or test bodies. - Full bootstrap attempted, but the local native SWC build fails at `cargo metadata` with `EPERM`; full integration/deployment execution remains for CI.  --------- Co-authored-by: Jamiboy Mohammad <jamiboym@gmail.com>

jamiboym changed the title ~~test: investigate body-size behavior in deploy~~ test: enable compatible body-size cases in deploy Sep 21, 2026

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from 26b28ca to 11d271d Compare September 21, 2026 20:17

jamiboym changed the base branch from canary to jstory/deploy-tests/pages-router September 21, 2026 20:18

jamiboym marked this pull request as ready for review September 21, 2026 20:26

jamiboym requested a review from gnoff September 22, 2026 02:13

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from 11d271d to 448a80a Compare September 23, 2026 03:48

jamiboym mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2026

test: migrate and explain custom server deploy exclusions #98994

Merged

jamiboym changed the base branch from jstory/deploy-tests/pages-router to jamiboym/deploy-exclusion-reasons/custom-servers September 23, 2026 03:49

jamiboym added this pull request to stack #99079 September 23, 2026 03:49

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from 448a80a to b44c3f0 Compare September 28, 2026 14:42

jamiboym removed this pull request from stack #99079 September 28, 2026 14:45

jamiboym added this pull request to stack #99364 September 28, 2026 14:45

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from b44c3f0 to 83082e8 Compare September 28, 2026 15:13

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from 83082e8 to a16d867 Compare September 28, 2026 19:52

jamiboym mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2026

test: migrate Pages Router deploy exclusions to force gates #98157

Merged

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from a16d867 to d988fa4 Compare September 29, 2026 00:31

jamiboym mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2026

test: retain deploy exclusions for local process control #99392

Merged

jamiboym removed this pull request from stack #99364 September 29, 2026 00:34

jamiboym changed the base branch from jamiboym/deploy-exclusion-reasons/custom-servers to jamiboym/deploy-exclusion-reasons/process-control September 29, 2026 00:34

jamiboym added this pull request to stack #99393 September 29, 2026 00:34

gnoff approved these changes Sep 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from d988fa4 to acaf609 Compare September 29, 2026 16:07

test: migrate body-size deploy gates and enable compatible cases

a4430f5

jamiboym force-pushed the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch from acaf609 to a4430f5 Compare September 29, 2026 19:52

jamiboym merged commit 0abfbcb into canary Sep 29, 2026
220 of 222 checks passed

jamiboym deleted the jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size branch September 29, 2026 23:35

github-actions Bot added the locked label Oct 14, 2026

github-actions Bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 14, 2026

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

test: enable compatible body-size cases in deploy - #98911

test: enable compatible body-size cases in deploy#98911
jamiboym merged 1 commit into
jamiboym/deploy-exclusion-reasons/process-controlfrom
jamiboym/investigate-deploy/body-size

jamiboym commented Sep 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

jamiboym commented Sep 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Verification

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Sep 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Tests Passed

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

jamiboym commented Sep 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Sep 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading