Closed phadaphunk closed 1 year ago
How did you fixed this @phadaphunk ? I'm having constantly same issues with nuxt2.
@kmukku Didn't really, we switched SSR to false and moved a lot of packages to devDependencies
to save space. We might have to move at some point due to the size, but at the moment we still have space to save with other dependencies.
I was able to make it work with nuxt2 again by locking to version 0.22.1. Hope it will work for you too.
vercel.json
{
"version": 2,
"builds": [
{
"src": "nuxt.config.js",
"use": "@nuxtjs/vercel-builder@0.22.1"
}
]
}
@kmukku Thanks for the tip! We did try that, and it did reduce the package size a bit, but we were still a little bit over 😢 It is good to note that the new version does increase the size a bit 👀
In SSR mode I also had to rollback to 0.22.1 since the index function went up to 110MB.
Actually, this is still relevant.
Experiencing the same issue since October 28th. Rolling back to 0.22.1 fixes this issue for our project as well.
Hello everybody,
I am facing the same issue today while updating my packages. I'm rolling back to 0.22.1 thanks to @kmukku
went from 18Mb to 156 Mb x)
Bye
similar problem here
Hey folks, thanks for flagging. We'll work with the team on this 👍
The issue is the latest version of npm, which has a bug with installing dependencies in a symlink. Previously we pinned to an older version of the vercel build tools and raised the issue. See https://github.com/nuxt/vercel-builder/pull/636 for a description of the problem.
Current workarounds are:
Hey, any news on this project? I'm still stuck on the deployment of my project :(
This should be resolved in the latest version of this builder via https://github.com/nuxt/vercel-builder/pull/636
This problem still persists for me. I have the latest release.
Pinning the version to an older version doesn't work either because it apparently requires vercel to use node 14 (but our codebase and vercel project is on node 16).
Any help is appreciated
Hey @codeofsumit, you can still use Node.js 14 on Vercel.
Sorry to hear you're still experiencing this. Would you open a new issue with a reproduction, so I can look into it? 🙏
@danielroe I have created a reproduction repo. I tried to get closer and closer to our web app setup including package versions, node version, etc.
While I haven't been able to get the exact error (yet), I still get an error and I'm stuck now.
Repo: https://github.com/tresorone/temp-web-app-repro
Error
✖ Nuxt Fatal Error ││ ││ Error: ││ ││ Vue packages version mismatch: ││ ││ - vue@2.6.14 ││ - vue-server-renderer@2.7.14 ││ ││ This may cause things to work incorrectly. Make sure to use the same ││ version for ││ both. ││ ││
Vercel Project Settings:
(Reopening to track in case this is a regression.)
@codeofsumit The issue is that you have a mismatch in your Vue versions (2.6 vs 2.7). I'm happy to push a fix to your package.json
if you share access to the repo with me.
@danielroe done. After your fix, I will continue to attempt deployment and will report back.
@danielroe thanks for the fix. Now we have the issue we were looking for:
Error: The Serverless Function "index" is 82.21mb which exceeds the maximum size limit of 50mb. Learn More: https://vercel.link/serverless-function-size
@codeofsumit Having checked your project and its build output, it doesn't seem like this isa bug with the builder or a regression of the linked issue here. (Just to confirm - you never used the builder successfully, right?)
Rather, your app is just too big when processed with this bundler. You should move many of your dependencies to devDependencies
because they are not needed once your app is built. For example, nuxt
(which depends on webpack) should be in your devDependencies, as well as any buildModules.
I would highly recommend that if you are using Nuxt 2 you consider Nuxt Bridge, which offers a much smaller output size and handles a lot of these issues.
Hi,
Since the latest release (
0.23
), all deployments are failing with the following message :I rolled back to 0.22.1 and the deployment never goes over
49.99 mb
.Was this limit handled before and this change is expected?