fix: run deferred effects in async components
#16721
Closing issue
Describe the bug
See #16682 (comment)
The issue here is that regular user effects (ones made specifically with $effect, not $effect.pre or render effects) are deferred until the component is mounted. However, since the code that indicates the component as being mounted, $.pop, runs synchronously (even in async components), the effects are never added to the array of deferred effects for their component (and might(?) be added to the parent component if it exists) if they're created after the first top-level await.
Reproduction
Logs
System Info
N/A
Severity
annoyance
Pull request
Closes #16691
Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following
- It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
- Prefix your PR title with
feat:,fix:,chore:, ordocs:. - This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
- Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.
- If this PR changes code within
packages/svelte/src, add a changeset (npx changeset).
Tests and linting
- Run the tests with
pnpm testand lint the project withpnpm lint
Info
🦋 Changeset detected
Latest commit: 9373a7e
The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.
This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
| Name | Type |
|---|---|
| svelte | Patch |
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.
Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR
pnpm add https://pkg.pr.new/svelte@16721Ah cool, thanks for starting that! Somewhat related I investigate various inconsistencies around the first run in #16709 and was thinking to add that on top, since it touches adjacent code paths (the PR already fixes the "properly run attachments and other effects created non-sync" part, but not the top level effects part). But I'll hold off from doing that since this looks promising.
This has been superseded by #16738, closing this.