GET queries which return an etag, but have a query string aren't cached
Reported by
ianopol...@gmail.com,
Dec 29 2016
|
|||
Issue descriptionUserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/55.0.2883.87 Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36 Steps to reproduce the problem: 1. Visit the following URL multiple times https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmTkzDwWqPbnAh5YiV5VwcTLnGdwSNsNTn2aDxdXBFca7D?key=thiswontbecached 2. It isn't cached despite correct Etag and Cache-Control headers being present 3. What is the expected behavior? It should be cached What went wrong? Chrome didn't cache the request for subsequent GETs Did this work before? N/A Does this work in other browsers? Yes Chrome version: 55.0.2883.87 Channel: stable OS Version: 4.4.0-47-generic #68-Ubuntu Flash Version: Caching works correctly for this URL in Firefox.
,
Dec 29 2016
I can't repro. When you say "visit multiple times", you mean navigate to that URL multiple times, not reload it, right? Reloading will force cache-revalidation. Just selecting the omnibox and pressing enter without modifying the URL will also be treated as a reload instead of as a navigation.
,
Dec 29 2016
No, I meant either pressing enter in the omnibox or F5. So, does that mean it is by design to ignore the cache in this situation, even if the cache headers previously said immutable and cache for a year? The original use case demonstrating it is inside an encrypted file storage app (Peergos) which makes ajax requests to similar urls with the same etag and cache-control header behaviour. I'll see if I can put together a public repro.
,
Dec 29 2016
Yes, that's by design. End users generally press F5 or press enter in the omnibox when there's a problem, so we re-validate the main resource in that case (But not subresources, though we used to revalidate them, too). Most other cases will use the cache (Fresh navigation, bookmark, link, etc). So it sounds like this is working as intended.
,
Dec 29 2016
Thank you for clarifying the design. Feel free to close this issue.
,
Dec 29 2016
Done, thanks for the followup! |
|||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||
Comment 1 by phistuck@chromium.org
, Dec 29 2016