[next] Let HMR log readers tell quiet from rebuild-in-flight - #3589
[next] Let HMR log readers tell quiet from rebuild-in-flight#3589alangenfeld wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 7494405 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 16 packages
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 |
🧪 E2E Test Results✅ All tests passed 🛠 Infra Events (absorbed by the harness)Platform anomalies the e2e harness detected and worked around (e.g. a run the queue never picked up, replaced by a fresh run). Clustered timestamps indicate a backend blip; a steady drip indicates a platform issue worth escalating.
E2E Test SummarySummary
Details by Category✅ ▲ Vercel Production
✅ 💻 Local Development
✅ 📦 Local Production
✅ 🐘 Local Postgres
✅ 🪟 Windows
✅ 🌐 Cross-language Conformance
✅ vercel-multi-region
|
Sim WorldSimulated world deterministic testing for races. Traces 🟠 world-sim scenario book — 1 fail of 41 total
Full trace: |
📊 Workflow Benchmarkscommit Backend:
Streams
📈 STSO distribution vs main (inline / queue-hop histograms)1020 steps (inline) Cumulative STSO time: main 222159ms → this run 240782ms (Δ +18623ms, +8%) 📈 CRTT drill-down vs main (RTT distributions & profiles)RTT over stream progress (avg per tenth of stream, bars scaled min→max): RTT by chunk size (avg per log size bin, ~160B → ~12KB serialized, bars scaled min→max): Delivery jitter over stream progress (avg positive CDV per tenth of stream, bars scaled min→max): 📜 Previous results (1)e615e82Mon, 17 Aug 2026 19:00:34 GMT · run logs
Streams
ℹ️ Metric definitions & methodologyStreams: writer/reader sustained rates (steady window, 10% trimmed each side), first-chunk RTT (the stream-open path, before any buffering/backpressure), CRTT percentiles, and worst delivery stall (CDV max). Cells are medians across iterations; per-run values in the artifacts. No 🔴/🟢 marks until targets attach. The collapsed STSO distribution section above buckets every step gap, split inline (same warm process — pure framework overhead) vs queue-hop (fresh process — dispatch, reinit, replay). The collapsed CRTT drill-down: per-variant RTT histograms (fixed log bins, Best/P75/P90/P99 deltas compare against the most recent benchmark run on Metrics — TTFS: time to first step body (in-deployment start() → first step body) · Fan-out TTFS: fan-out time to first step (in-deployment start() → first of the parallel step bodies to complete) · Fan-out TTLS: fan-out time to last step (in-deployment start() → last of the parallel step bodies to complete, i.e. when the Promise.all resolves) · STSO: step-to-step overhead (gap between consecutive step bodies) · WO: workflow overhead (whole-run time outside step bodies, in-deployment anchored) · CRTT: chunk round-trip time (per-chunk write → read latency, one clock domain: deployment → stream backend → same deployment) · CDV: chunk delay variation / delivery jitter (inter-arrival gap minus inter-write gap per seq-adjacent pair; skew-free; the row is each run's MAX positive value, so one stall moves it) Scenarios — step: one trivial no-op step, no stream; no hooks, so the run stays in turbo mode (in-process fast path) · stream: one streaming step; no hooks, so the run stays in turbo mode (in-process fast path) · hook + stream: registers a hook before one step, which exits turbo mode (dispatch path) · 1020 steps: 1020 trivial sequential steps; STSO is measured between consecutive steps in the given step ranges, and WO is the whole-run overhead outside step bodies · Promise.all(100 steps): 100 trivial no-op steps started together in a single Promise.all; Fan-out TTFS is the first of them to complete and Fan-out TTLS the last, both from the in-deployment clientStart, so their gap is the spread the runtime adds across the fan-out · paced control (100/s, 60B): the control: 300 tiny (~60B) deltas metronome-paced at 100/s — zero workload structure, so it reads the transport floor and flush cadence, and disambiguates transport-wide vs workload-specific when a replay row moves · size sweep (100/s, 160B-12KB): same pacing as the control with deltas padded in rotation across seven log-spaced sizes (~160B–12KB) — rotation decouples size from stream position, so it isolates whether chunk size causes latency · replay gateway-gpt-5.4-nano-2000t (1x): raw provider SSE cadence captured at the AI gateway boundary (gpt-5.4-nano, the most popular gateway model; per-token deltas p50 208B = the modal production chunk size), replayed exactly as measured — the typical customer's workload; its CDV is the typical customer's real delivery jitter · replay eve-gpt-5.6-sol-2000t (1x): a captured eve turn (gpt-5.6-sol, the most-used demanding eve model; ~2000 output tokens = production p50 turn length) replayed exactly as measured — eve's envelope protocol re-ships the cumulative message so sizes ramp 142B→13KB; the demanding outlier tenant's reality · replay eve-gpt-5.6-sol-2000t (2x): the same eve capture at 2x — the headroom/stress row; real fast-tier models emit the same chunk sizes at proportionally higher rate, so time compression is a faithful speed model · first chunk (pooled): every run's seq-0 RTT pooled across all stream scenarios — the first chunk precedes any workload differentiation, so pooling samples one shared stream-open path with exact percentiles Replay cadences (semantic sha256) — eve-gpt-5.6-sol-2000t 🔴 marks a percentile over its target (within target is left unmarked). Targets (p75/p90/p99, ms) — TTFS 200/300/600 All timestamps are deployment-side; runs are triggered in-deployment, so the CI runner and api.vercel.com sit outside every measured window. TTFS = Cold starts stay in the numbers (real bursty-workload latency, inflates P75+); Best is the warm floor. |
The dev HMR log line for a rebuild is written at classification time, before the (potentially multi-second) rebuild runs. A reader counting lines in a window has no way to tell 'quiet' from 'rebuild in flight with queued events behind it', and the e2e HMR tests count lines in exact windows: on CI, where rebuilds take 5-12s, a write from a previous test case (or a teardown restore) can still be rebuilding when the next window opens, and its legitimate rebuild lines land inside that window - observed on main as the fuzz test failing both retry attempts with 'expected 2 to be 1'. The dev server now also logs 'workflow dev hmr: rebuild complete' when a rebuild finishes processing (in a finally, so an erroring rebuild cannot wedge readers; behind WORKFLOW_DEV_HMR_LOGS like every hmr line). The e2e suite uses it to drain to quiescence - every started rebuild completed, plus a short quiet window covering watcher latency and the flush debounce - before taking a log cursor. Every cursor call site writes only after taking its cursor, so draining there cannot swallow lines a test means to count. Signed-off-by: Alex Langenfeld <alex.langenfeld@vercel.com>
e615e82 to
7494405
Compare
1 participant
Summary & Motivation
A rebuild's HMR log line is written when it's classified, before the rebuild runs, so a reader counting lines can't distinguish a quiet pipeline from one with a multi-second rebuild still in flight. The dev server now logs
workflow dev hmr: rebuild completewhen a rebuild finishes processing, and the e2e HMR tests drain to quiescence before taking a log cursor, so a slow rebuild from a previous write no longer lands inside the next exact-count window.Test Plan
Existing HMR e2e coverage runs in CI; a fresh-server local webpack run of the fuzz test passes with the drain in place.