"blocked onebox domains" setting not respected

sam · February 17, 2022, 2:27am

Wild idea… should we support:

cache-control: no-store

The no-store response directive indicates that any caches of any kind (private or shared) should not store this response.

GitHub is specifically saying .. please … don’t store me …

Maybe onebox should respect it … and not store it.

We could always make this an experimental setting to start and see what impact it has.

The preview would have to explain why we are not oneboxing.

Note… we do use no-store in quite a few places, but I think we redirect in those cases, yet there is this slight complexity.

github.com/discourse/discourse

spec/requests/topics_controller_spec.rb

a0c65e91d


      
          it 'correctly renders canonicals' do
            get "/t/#{topic.id}", params: { slug: topic.slug }
          
            expect(response.status).to eq(200)
            expect(css_select("link[rel=canonical]").length).to eq(1)
            expect(response.headers["Cache-Control"]).to eq("no-cache, no-store")
          end

Topic		Replies	Views
"blocked onebox domains" doesn't work Bug	5	639	January 23, 2023
How can I stop onebox redirection? Feature	15	2280	December 17, 2019
Allow sub-domains from blocked domain to onebox Product Support onebox	7	645	October 13, 2023
Configuring and troubleshooting oneboxes Site Management onebox , how-to , content	2	3035	June 26, 2026
Onebox no longer works for my wordpress site Product Support	11	1957	June 12, 2017

"blocked onebox domains" setting not respected

Related topics