Ensure serviceworker bypass only checks path #10820
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
atsmith813
approved these changes
Oct 12, 2020
pr-triage
bot
added
PR: partially-approved
Zhao-Andy
approved these changes
Oct 12, 2020
pr-triage
bot
added
PR: merged
boardfish
pushed a commit
to boardfish/forem
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2020
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
Description
This functionality naively checks for which paths to skip over for service workers. The reason it can be pretty naive is that it is not that big a deal if it's a little too aggressive. Occasionally skipping service workers is fine.
But one problem is that
https://forem.dev_includes/forem........ Which is a problem because it always skipped over and did nothing. This changes the code to check only path, which is what it should have been before.There is definitely still a need to make this more precise, but for now this solves this particular defect.