fix(nuxt): sync watch request in useAsyncData #33192

Tofandel · 2025-09-10T12:40:47Z

🔗 Linked issue

Resolves #33189

📚 Description

This fixes an issue where the requests would execute before the watched parameters were updated by other watchers

bolt-new-by-stackblitz · 2025-09-10T12:40:51Z

Run & review this pull request in StackBlitz Codeflow.

coderabbitai · 2025-09-10T12:43:37Z

Walkthrough

The useAsyncData watcher was refactored to separate key changes from other watch sources: a key-specific watcher (unsubKeyWatcher) now handles unregistering/registering entries, dependency counts, and conditional initial fetches when the primary key changes; a second watcher (unsubWatcher) observes options.watch and triggers asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe }) on those source changes. Cleanup now disposes both watchers. A new test (test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts) was added to verify deep, non-synchronous watching of a reactive params object; that test appears duplicated in the diff.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Pre-merge checks (4 passed, 1 warning)

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Out of Scope Changes Check	⚠️ Warning	The functional changes are limited to packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts and related tests, which align with the linked issue; however the test file contains a duplicated test insertion (the same new test appears twice), which appears accidental and is unrelated to the fix itself.	Remove the duplicated test entry from test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts and run the test suite/CI again to ensure only the intended test remains and there are no accidental regressions from the duplicate.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title "fix(nuxt): sync watch request in useAsyncData" concisely identifies a bugfix in useAsyncData related to the watch/request synchronisation and reflects the primary intent of the changeset described in the PR and raw_summary. It is short, focused on the main change, and will be understandable to reviewers scanning history.
Linked Issues Check	✅ Passed	The changes shown (splitting the single watcher into a dedicated key watcher and a separate watcher for options.watch, updating cleanup, and adding a test that verifies non-synchronous/debounced refetch behaviour for deep reactive params) directly address the root cause described in issue #33189 and the PR objectives to avoid starting requests before other watchers complete. The new test exercises the exact scenario from the issue, demonstrating the intended fix.
Description Check	✅ Passed	The PR description clearly references the linked issue (#33189) and succinctly states the problem being fixed (requests executing before watched parameters were updated), which is directly related to the changes in asyncData.ts and the added tests; it is not off-topic.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 95946c9 and e9965d1.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)

GitHub Check: build
GitHub Check: codeql (javascript-typescript)
GitHub Check: code

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate Docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

pkg-pr-new · 2025-09-10T12:47:43Z

Open in StackBlitz

@nuxt/kit

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/kit@33192

nuxt

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/nuxt@33192

@nuxt/rspack-builder

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/rspack-builder@33192

@nuxt/schema

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/schema@33192

@nuxt/vite-builder

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/vite-builder@33192

@nuxt/webpack-builder

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@nuxt/webpack-builder@33192

commit: e9965d1

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1)
359-406: Prefer a deterministic await over setTimeout(5) and use a plain array for history.

Using timers can be flaky under load; await flushPromises() (or two ticks) is more deterministic for a debounce(0).

requestHistory doesn’t need to be reactive; a plain array avoids needless reactivity.

You could simplify with:
-  const requestHistory = reactive([])
+  const requestHistory: any[] = []

@@
-  // We need to wait for the debounce 0
-  await (new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 5)))
+  // Wait for the debounce(0) queue to flush
+  await nextTick()
+  await flushPromises()

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b9ec650 and c4a8481.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts (2 hunks)
test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (2)

**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Follow standard TypeScript conventions and best practices

Files:

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts
packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts

**/*.{test,spec}.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Write unit tests for core functionality using vitest

Files:

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (3)

GitHub Check: codeql (javascript-typescript)
GitHub Check: build
GitHub Check: code

🔇 Additional comments (2)

packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts (2)

325-349: Watcher split is the right fix; double‑check keeping key watcher as flush: 'sync'.

Separating the key watcher from the user options.watch sources removes the synchronous triggering that caused the race. Keeping the key watcher sync preserves current semantics for key changes, but please verify scenarios where the key is computed from the same reactive sources mutated by other watchers. In such cases, a sync key watcher can still pre-empt queued non-sync watchers and run an initial execute before those finish. If that shows up, consider flush: 'pre' here as well or gating execution with a microtask.

Would you like me to add a focused spec that mutates both a computed key and a watched params object in the same tick to assert the desired ordering?

359-361: LGTM on disposal.

Disposing both watchers and unregistering the current key prevents leaks. Looks good.

coderabbitai · 2025-09-10T12:52:21Z

packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts

      onScopeDispose(() => {
-        unsubExecute()
+        unsubKeyWatcher()
+        unsubWatcher()
        unregister(key.value)
      })
    }


🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Make the watcher flush explicit (non‑sync) and widen watch option typing.

Being explicit about the flush makes intent clear and resists regressions.

The code and new test support passing a reactive object to options.watch, but AsyncDataOptions['watch'] is still typed as MultiWatchSources. That will reject objects in TS.

Apply:

-const unsubWatcher = options.watch - ? watch(options.watch, () => { - asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe: options.dedupe }) - }) - : () => {} +const unsubWatcher = options.watch + ? watch( + options.watch as any, + () => { asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe: options.dedupe }) }, + { flush: 'pre' } + ) + : () => {}

Additionally (outside this hunk), update the option type so passing a reactive object is valid:

- watch?: MultiWatchSources + // Accept either multiple sources or a single reactive object + watch?: MultiWatchSources | Record<string, any>

📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

const unsubWatcher = options.watch

? watch(options.watch, () => {

asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe: options.dedupe })

})

: () => {}

const unsubWatcher = options.watch

? watch(

options.watch as any,

() => { asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe: options.dedupe }) },

{ flush: 'pre' }

)

: () => {}

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts around lines 351-356, the watcher should be created with an explicit non-sync flush and the options.watch typing must be widened to accept reactive objects; update the watch call to pass watch(options.watch, () => asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe: options.dedupe }), { flush: 'post' }) (making flush explicit and non-sync), and elsewhere broaden AsyncDataOptions['watch'] to include reactive object types (e.g. accept WatchSource<Record<string, any>> or Record<string, any> in addition to MultiWatchSources) so passing a reactive object is allowed by TypeScript and the new test will compile.

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

codspeed-hq · 2025-09-10T12:58:26Z

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #33192 will not alter performance

_{Comparing Tofandel:fix/async-data-sync-watch (e9965d1) with main (3f7624b)}

Summary

✅ 10 untouched

OrbisK · 2025-09-10T13:40:12Z

packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts

+    const unsubWatcher = options.watch
+      ? watch(options.watch, () => {
+          asyncData._execute({ cause: 'watch', dedupe: options.dedupe })
+        })


maybe we should have something like watchOptions 🤔 ?

It can be nice to have, though it might mess around if users send immediate or other options which were not accounted for

The default options should already account for 99.9% of the cases (because it's already always deep and so pretty much the only options to play with are once and flush) and I don't think pre post would change anything here as the watcher doesn't do any DOM manipulation

I would still leave it for another PR if needed as this is a patch, so I wouldn't want to introduce new options

Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1)

360-360: Prior review concern resolved: promiseFn is now defined.

This addresses the earlier runtime error reported in past reviews. Looks good.

🧹 Nitpick comments (4)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (4)
379-381: Avoid real timer sleeps; flush reactively instead to prevent flakes.

Replace the arbitrary setTimeout(5) with deterministic flushes.
-    // We need to wait for the debounce 0
-    await (new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 5)))
+    // Wait for watchers and pending microtasks to flush deterministically
+    await nextTick()
+    await flushPromises()
383-383: Ensure the second re-fetch has fully flushed before asserting.

Add flushPromises() after nextTick() to make the test deterministic.
-    await nextTick()
+    await nextTick()
+    await flushPromises()
359-359: Minor wording: hyphenate “non-synchronous”.
-  it('should watch params deeply in a non synchronous way', async () => {
+  it('should watch params deeply in a non-synchronous way', async () => {
406-407: Strengthen the assertion with an explicit call-count check.

This verifies exactly three executions: initial + two subsequent watched updates.
     ])
+    expect(promiseFn).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c4a8481 and d46ece4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (2)

**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Follow standard TypeScript conventions and best practices

Files:

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

**/*.{test,spec}.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Write unit tests for core functionality using vitest

Files:

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1)

packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts (1)

useAsyncData (184-381)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

GitHub Check: build
GitHub Check: code

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

Co-authored-by: Robin <[email protected]>

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1)
365-365: Fix TypeScript inference: requestHistory is never[].

const requestHistory = [] infers never[] under strict TS, making push(...) a type error. Type the array explicitly.
-    const requestHistory = []
+    type RequestParamsSnapshot = { deep: { baz: string }, foo?: string, locale?: string }
+    const requestHistory: RequestParamsSnapshot[] = []

🧹 Nitpick comments (3)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (3)

379-381: Make the test deterministic without real-time sleeps.

Replace setTimeout(5) with tick/flush to reliably batch updates and flush watchers.

-    // We need to wait for the debounce 0
-    await (new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 5)))
+    // Batch updates and let watchers/asyncData flush
+    await nextTick()
+    await flushPromises()

373-376: Prefer structuredClone over JSON stringify for deep cloning (fallback-safe).

This avoids pitfalls with non-JSON data and is clearer.

-    await useAsyncData(uniqueKey, async () => {
-      requestHistory.push(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(params)))
+    await useAsyncData(uniqueKey, async () => {
+      const snapshot = typeof structuredClone === 'function'
+        ? structuredClone(params)
+        : JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(params))
+      requestHistory.push(snapshot)
       await promiseFn()
     }, { watch: params })

384-407: Strengthen assertion: verify fetch invocations count.

Ensures no extra/missed executions slip in unnoticed.

     expect(requestHistory).toEqual([
       {
         deep: {
           baz: 'baz',
         },
         foo: 'foo',
         locale: 'en',
       },
       {
         deep: {
           baz: 'baz',
         },
         foo: 'bar',
         locale: 'fr',
       },
       {
         deep: {
           baz: 'bar',
         },
         foo: 'bar',
         locale: 'fr',
       },
     ])
+    expect(promiseFn).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d46ece4 and 95946c9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (2)

**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Follow standard TypeScript conventions and best practices

Files:

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

**/*.{test,spec}.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.github/copilot-instructions.md)

Write unit tests for core functionality using vitest

Files:

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts (1)

packages/nuxt/src/app/composables/asyncData.ts (1)

useAsyncData (184-381)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

GitHub Check: build
GitHub Check: code

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

Co-authored-by: Robin <[email protected]>

Tofandel requested a review from danielroe as a code owner September 10, 2025 12:40

github-actions bot added 4.x bug labels Sep 10, 2025

Tofandel force-pushed the fix/async-data-sync-watch branch from 1db54f5 to 1143e35 Compare September 10, 2025 12:41

fix: sync watch request in useAsyncData nuxt#33189

c4a8481

Tofandel force-pushed the fix/async-data-sync-watch branch from 1143e35 to c4a8481 Compare September 10, 2025 12:43

coderabbitai bot reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

OrbisK reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Update test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

d46ece4

Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

coderabbitai bot reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

OrbisK reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts

95946c9

Co-authored-by: Robin <[email protected]>

coderabbitai bot reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

test/nuxt/use-async-data.test.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

danielroe changed the title ~~fix: sync watch request in useAsyncData~~ fix(nuxt): sync watch request in useAsyncData Sep 10, 2025

chore: clean up test slightly

e9965d1

danielroe approved these changes Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

danielroe merged commit e2af8c6 into nuxt:main Sep 11, 2025
44 of 46 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2025

v4.1.2 #33155

Merged

danielroe pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2025

fix(nuxt): sync watch request in useAsyncData (#33192)

cd21963

Co-authored-by: Robin <[email protected]>

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2025

v3.19.2 #33171

Merged

This was referenced Sep 15, 2025

useFetch with immediate: false does not re-execute correctly after reactive query update since v4.1.2 #33240

Closed

useAsyncData watch option is broken? #33241

Closed

coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2025

fix(nuxt): resolve watch callback after reactive key change in useAsyncData #33802

Merged

Uh oh!

fix(nuxt): sync watch request in useAsyncData #33192

fix(nuxt): sync watch request in useAsyncData #33192

Uh oh!

Conversation

Tofandel commented Sep 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🔗 Linked issue

📚 Description

Uh oh!

bolt-new-by-stackblitz bot commented Sep 10, 2025

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Estimated code review effort

Pre-merge checks (4 passed, 1 warning)

Uh oh!

pkg-pr-new bot commented Sep 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Sep 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #33192 will not alter performance

Summary

Uh oh!

OrbisK Sep 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Tofandel Sep 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Tofandel commented Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

pkg-pr-new bot commented Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Tofandel Sep 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading