feat(cache): use cache more often

[avivkeller]

Follow-up #8216.

Enables the use cache directive on:

• provideVulnerabilities
• provideReleaseVersion
• provideSupporters

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org	Ready	Preview	Oct 18, 2025 8:27pm

💡 Enable Vercel Agent with $100 free credit for automated AI reviews

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR extends the use cache directive implementation to additional data providers as a follow-up to PR #8216, modernizing the caching approach for performance optimization.

• Replaces React's cache function with Next.js use cache directive for three providers
• Simplifies provider modules by moving cache logic to generators and importing directly
• Updates consuming components to handle async provider functions

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
apps/site/next.dynamic.constants.mjs	Adds await to provideReleaseVersions call
apps/site/next-data/providers/vulnerabilities.ts	Converts to use cache directive and direct import
apps/site/next-data/providers/supportersData.ts	New file with use cache directive
apps/site/next-data/providers/supportersData.mjs	Deleted file (moved to .ts)
apps/site/next-data/providers/releaseVersions.ts	Converts to use cache directive and direct import
apps/site/next-data/providers/releaseData.ts	Simplified to direct import
apps/site/next-data/generators/supportersData.mjs	Changed export to default export
apps/site/components/withSupporters.tsx	Updated to async component with await call
apps/site/components/EOL/EOLReleaseTable/index.tsx	Added await to provideVulnerabilities call

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[avivkeller]

Since these three providers are all simple, I did this in a single PR. provideBlogData (and related) are a bit more complex, and they should be done seperately

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.44%. Comparing base (843297a) to head (4d824c4).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8238   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.44%   76.44%           
=======================================
  Files         115      115           
  Lines        9643     9643           
  Branches      317      317           
=======================================
  Hits         7372     7372           
  Misses       2270     2270           
  Partials        1        1           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ovflowd]

SGTM!

[ovflowd]

I assume that's all usages/imports of the server data?

[avivkeller]

I assume that's all usages/imports of the server data?

No (see #8238 (comment)). There is also the blog data and snippet data, but that's a bit different (since it's not a simple re-export), so I figured I'd break it up.

[avivkeller]

I figured we'd group them into:

• The first provider / setup
• The other simple providers (this PR)
• The slightly more complex providers (next PR)

[ovflowd]

Let's merge this now (fast-track) and go to the next ones!