You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Some URLs behave differently when a cache-buster—a query string—is appended. Setting aside whether it's reasonable for a Web server or Web application to behave differently if, for example, /?_=1234 is requested instead of /, URLs observed in the wild do sometimes differentiate, making testing difficult.
Would it make sense to add a no_cachebust: true or similar flag to check directives? This feels kind of hokey and it would be an inverted label. On the other hand, it would somewhat neatly complement the --no-cachebust command-line argument. By default we cache-bust all URLs and transform them if a non-live level is specified. Maybe a more generic leave_this_url_alone: true (or exact: true) flag would be better on a per-check directive basis?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This would be the same as exact: true, just not in a redirect block?
If we went the list of transformations toggles route, what would we have besides cache_bust: false? level_mangling: false, as a complementary feature to only_levels? Any others?
Some URLs behave differently when a cache-buster—a query string—is appended. Setting aside whether it's reasonable for a Web server or Web application to behave differently if, for example,
/?_=1234
is requested instead of/
, URLs observed in the wild do sometimes differentiate, making testing difficult.Would it make sense to add a
no_cachebust: true
or similar flag to check directives? This feels kind of hokey and it would be an inverted label. On the other hand, it would somewhat neatly complement the--no-cachebust
command-line argument. By default we cache-bust all URLs and transform them if a non-live level is specified. Maybe a more genericleave_this_url_alone: true
(orexact: true
) flag would be better on a per-check directive basis?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: