Recent comments in /f/meta
nitori OP wrote
Reply to We should use "Cache-Control: immutable" for every file served that we're sure will never change by nitori
Hmm I just looked at what today's Firefox does (since I used Pale Moon's devtools when I checked this out), and apparently it doesn't request the static resource again and therefore does not let the server return a 304, even if there's no Cache-Control header. I wonder what sorcery Mozilla did to determine whether a resource is immutable and therefore safe to just rely on cache when reloading... Or maybe they just decided that they shouldn't bother to look for 304 in every resource whose initiator/cause in the devtools network tab is not "document"... I don't think this aggressive caching is smart since that just increases the likelihood of outdated resources being served when the browser should've revalidated its cache. So I say go for it regardless of what mainstream browsers think lol
emma wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by nitori in We should use "Cache-Control: immutable" for every file served that we're sure will never change by nitori
It certainly could be added to the nginx that Postmill includes.
Edit to add: Cloudflare doesn't add that stuff, the caching's been tweaked by me over years. I plan to document it in the Postmill wiki sometime in the future.
twovests wrote
Reply to We should use "Cache-Control: immutable" for every file served that we're sure will never change by nitori
Ooh I really appreciate this. We're using Caddy, so I'll have to translate the config, but that shouldn't be too hard (+ easy to reverse if I mess it up lol).
nitori OP wrote
Reply to We should use "Cache-Control: immutable" for every file served that we're sure will never change by nitori
u/emma I wonder if this can also be done in Postmill proper so that sysadmins don't have to manually add the header themselves in their reverse proxies?
hollyhoppet wrote
Reply to Fix-- users can create accounts now :) by twovests
woopsie lol
twovests wrote
Reply to Can we have the thumbnail of the third pinned post of f/2hu point to something lol by nitori
i also need to fix a 500 error on signing in!! i keep procrastinating image thumbnails. will get crackin on both later today
nomorepie wrote
Skill issue
I_got_killed_one_time wrote
Reply to comment by I_got_killed_one_time in Uploaded images don't display for me (at least thumbnails, anyway) by flabberghaster
Fuck You
flabberghaster OP wrote
Reply to comment by emma in Uploaded images don't display for me (at least thumbnails, anyway) by flabberghaster
It is not fixed, it still thinks it's an http site. If you changed docker-compose.yml, you'll also have to docker compose up -d.
(i call it dorker)
twovests wrote
Reply to comment by emma in Uploaded images don't display for me (at least thumbnails, anyway) by flabberghaster
crud. thanks for the details; i'll fix this up tomorrow!
emma wrote
Reply to comment by twovests in Uploaded images don't display for me (at least thumbnails, anyway) by flabberghaster
It is not fixed, it still thinks it's an http site. If you changed docker-compose.yml, you'll also have to docker compose up -d
.
Also i just pushed new images since there was a bug after upgrading Symfony that would affect TRUSTED_PROXIES, so may be a good idea to docker compose pull
before doing the above, too.
twovests wrote
fixed!! thank u for pinging about this again, i totally forgot.
the fix took less time to do than typing this comment
nitori wrote
Reply to comment by twovests in Uploaded images don't display for me (at least thumbnails, anyway) by flabberghaster
flabberghaster OP wrote
Reply to comment by nitori in Uploaded images don't display for me (at least thumbnails, anyway) by flabberghaster
mease grunckey
twovests wrote
i think the large squares are beautiful and actually a good aesthetic.
the real reason is that this is my fault, i just haven't gotten around to fixing it yet
nitori wrote
Yeah it's a known issue. I've been using my own Greasemonkey script as a workaround for now.
Jenheadjen wrote
hollyhoppet admin wrote
cute_spider wrote
Reply to There's a 1930s gangster trying to take over the server. Should we do something to stop him? by flabberghaster
As long as he's posting, he's not breaking any rules, so he should be allowed to continue despite your concerns.
Jenheadjen wrote
Reply to There's a 1930s gangster trying to take over the server. Should we do something to stop him? by flabberghaster
let's see where he's going with this
missingno wrote
Reply to There's a 1930s gangster trying to take over the server. Should we do something to stop him? by flabberghaster
I'll allow it
Alessia wrote
Reply to There's a 1930s gangster trying to take over the server. Should we do something to stop him? by flabberghaster
fuhgeddaboudit
nitori OP wrote
Reply to comment by nitori in We should use "Cache-Control: immutable" for every file served that we're sure will never change by nitori
Aha, so Chrome was already doing it since like version 40 or so, and Mozilla just eventually followed Chrome's behavior in Firefox 95. Interesting...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1468476