Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[chore] Do cache-control in a less silly way to avoid writing header twice #1481

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 13, 2023

Conversation

tsmethurst
Copy link
Contributor

Description

If this is a code change, please include a summary of what you've coded, and link to the issue(s) it closes/implements.

If this is a documentation change, please briefly describe what you've changed and why.

I was way too hasty merging #1480.

This PR achieves the same effect, but without having to write the Cache-Control header twice for every request when using non-proxying s3; instead the storage method is just checked once at startup and the appropriate cache-control timeout is selected then.

Checklist

Please put an x inside each checkbox to indicate that you've read and followed it: [ ] -> [x]

If this is a documentation change, only the first checkbox must be filled (you can delete the others if you want).

  • I/we have read the GoToSocial contribution guidelines.
  • I/we have discussed the proposed changes already, either in an issue on the repository, or in the Matrix chat.
  • I/we have performed a self-review of added code.
  • I/we have written code that is legible and maintainable by others.
  • I/we have commented the added code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I/we have made any necessary changes to documentation.
  • I/we have added tests that cover new code.
  • I/we have run tests and they pass locally with the changes.
  • I/we have run go fmt ./... and golangci-lint run.

@tsmethurst tsmethurst merged commit 041c8e6 into main Feb 13, 2023
@tsmethurst tsmethurst deleted the cache_control_tweak branch February 13, 2023 11:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants