feat(server): support static asset byte ranges

[Boyeep]

What changed

• support single bytes ranges in the Node production static server
• return correct 206 Partial Content and 416 Range Not Satisfiable responses
• support strong ETag and HTTP-date If-Range validation
• serve ranges from the identity representation
• advertise Accept-Ranges and emit Last-Modified
• cover both startup-cache and filesystem fallback paths

Why

The Node production server ignored Range, unlike Next.js static serving. Large emitted media and other static assets could only be downloaded in full, preventing efficient seeking and resumable transfers.

Impact

Node deployments can serve bounded, open-ended, and suffix byte ranges. HEAD continues to ignore Range as required by RFC 9110, and normal compression behavior is unchanged for non-range requests.

Validation

• vp test run tests/http-range.test.ts tests/static-file-cache.test.ts
• vp test run tests/app-router-production-server.test.ts -t "serves static asset byte ranges"
• vp check tests/http-range.test.ts tests/static-file-cache.test.ts tests/app-router-production-server.test.ts packages/vinext/src/server/http-range.ts packages/vinext/src/server/static-file-cache.ts packages/vinext/src/server/prod-server.ts

[pkg-pr-new]

Open in StackBlitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vinext/cloudflare@2711

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/create-vinext-app@2711

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vinext/types@2711

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/vinext@2711

commit: 08a4f00

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e5271927a5

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Reject non-HTTP dates before honoring If-Range

If-Range only permits an HTTP-date, but Date.parse() also accepts formats such as 12/31/2099 and 2099-12-31. A client resuming an older download with such an invalid future validator will therefore receive 206 bytes from the current file instead of the required full 200 response, potentially combining bytes from different file versions. Validate the HTTP-date grammar before comparing the timestamp.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[github-actions]

Performance benchmarks

Compared 08a4f00 against base 05eee9f using alternating same-runner rounds. Next.js was unchanged and skipped.

0 improved · 0 regressed · 6 within ±1.5%

Scenario	Framework	Baseline	Current	Change
Client bundle size (gzip)	vinext	132.4 KB	132.4 KB	⚫ -0.0%
Client entry size (gzip)	vinext	119.7 KB	119.7 KB	⚫ -0.0%
Dev server cold start	vinext	2.85 s	2.84 s	⚫ -0.4%
Production build time	vinext	3.14 s	3.10 s	⚫ -1.1%
RSC entry closure size (gzip)	vinext	103.3 KB	103.3 KB	⚫ 0.0%
Server bundle size (gzip)	vinext	177.8 KB	177.8 KB	⚫ +0.0%

View detailed results and traces

_{🟢 improvement · 🔴 regression · ⚫ change below 1.5% · paired base/head}