fix(runtime): async load order improvements; guarantee parent / child order contract - #6823
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the current behavior?
GitHub Issue Number: #6636 (and more)
For any tree of Stencil components, regardless of which output is used, this should be the order:
connectedCallbackfires top-down - never before the nearest Stencil ancestor's has fully completed.componentWillLoadfires top-down, after descendants have connected - never before every already-present Stencil descendant'sconnectedCallbackhas fired. (The core bug: component's child initial timing leads to unexpected behavior #6636 fix.)componentDidLoadfires bottom-up — never before all descendants' componentDidLoads haveThis should be true no-matter if using the lazy loader, standalone components or the standalone auto-loader .. at present this is not the case. Network latency (for example) can cause this lifecycle of events to fire out-of-order.
What is the new behavior?
The contract is enforced
Documentation
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Not strictly - but could be a change in expectation if someone is currently relying on a particular order.
Testing
Other information