feat: add css files to server bundle for optimizeCss feature to work #2965
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
The inlining of Critical CSS with the optimizeCss feature doesn't work when using Next.js 15.3.3 (Page Router) and @netlify/plugin-nextjs 5.11.2.
The optimizeCss feature relies on the CSS files being present in the server-function bundle. During page rendering (e.g., during ISR or revalidation), a server function using the Critters library attempts to locate the CSS files used on the page and inline them in the HTML. Without these files in the server-function bundle, the inlining process fails.
These changes make the bundling process include
.next/static/cssfiles in the server-function bundle.Detailed information is in the attached issue below.
Documentation
This is an internal change that should not require documentation.
Tests
Code coverage did not change. That should not require tests changes.
GitHub issue
#2963