Cache buster breaks periodically

[grantfitzsimmons]

After modifying a view definition, I want to clear my cache. I sometimes (every 2-3 times) have the cache buster break.

It is common enough that I log out and log back in instead of trying to use it when modifying forms.

[maxpatiiuk]

Fixed on agent-merging branch in c67873ba8 by silencing the errors that occur as part of cache busting

[grantfitzsimmons]

Soraya at Bern reported this today!

[grantfitzsimmons]

Maybe it will be resolved on the xml-editor branch. @specify/ux-testing can you make sure?

[pashiav]

Cache is not being cleared.

The amount of cache in chrome settings is the exact same after using the "Clear Browser Cache" tool.

tested on branch edge on dbs: Gothenburg_12_07_23 and nbm_mnb_5_5_23

[maxpatiiuk]

that's a smart way to check this! but...I am not sure if that amount would be affected by this (at least not noticeably)

reasons:

- many of the cached files for which cache is being cleared are very small (under 1mb total) - the way the cache buster works is that it tells browser to make a fetch a file again, "and to not look into cached version if cached version is older than 0s", but this does not prevent the browser from caching the file again right after the request

thus, for verifying this bug, I would suggest finding an actual app resource or view definition that is still stale after cleaning the cache OR running the cache buster and seeing if this error still happens (like in the original comment in this issue)

to verify that an error message is discarded silently rather than shown to the user, you would need to either:

• make the asset server go down temporary
• temporary block some URLs in the DevTools (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27863094/how-to-block-a-url-in-chromes-developer-tools-network-monitor)

(this might get a bit too technical, so feel free to ask for assistance)

at the same time, the fix is relatively simple, and the exact same fix has already been applied in other places and tested working correctly, so it might not be worth spending too much time verifying it here