Error message for Google Chrome Service Workers

bug
1

 It seems to be a Workbox version compatibility issue. I didn’t encounter any errors while using Firefox, but it appears to be happening only for me on Google Chrome. I have deployed both an older version (3.1.0.beta2) and the latest version (3.1.0.beta5) of Discourse, and the error only occurs in version 3.1.0.beta5 when using Google Chrome.

 I have also seen the same error on meta.

Registrations in: /Users/mac/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/Default (0)
Scope: https://meta.discourse.org/
Registration ID: 258 (unregistered)
Navigation preload enabled: false
Navigation preload header length: 4
Unregistered worker:
Installation Status: REDUNDANT
Running Status: RUNNING
Fetch handler existence: UNKNOWN
Fetch handler type: UNKNOWN
Script: https://meta.discourse.org/service-worker.js
Version ID: 279
Renderer process ID: 2118
Renderer thread ID: 2
DevTools agent route ID: 6
Log:

12.10.59
12.10.591104×236 48.9 KB

2 Likes
2

what version of chrome? i run chrome on windows desktop and have never had that error. make sure browser is up to date.

3

FWIW I’m seeing similar on my test site :person_raising_hand:

image
image956×148 8.24 KB

Not sure what it means though.

(and I updated Chrome just now before checking again :slight_smile:)

Just to add, I also checked it on a site I’ve not updated to 3.1.0.beta5 yet and it does not appear there.

3 Likes
4

I use Chrome on my Mac, which is already the latest version, and I have tried clearing the cache. The error still persists, but it’s possible that this error is only happening locally on my computer.

1 Like
5

weird. i don’t see the error on my site.

6

I repro the issue using a Chromium-based browser as well on meta. :slight_smile:

Uncaught TypeError: workbox.cacheableResponse.Plugin is not a constructor

image
image835×232 39 KB

3 Likes
7

An error like this seems to be able to cause potential issues with caching resources correctly.

3 Likes
8

i’ve repro’d it too finally

1 Like
9

yep！I did some research and it seems that replacing workbox.cacheableResponse.Plugin with workbox.cacheableResponse.CacheableResponsePlugin might be a possible solution.

3 Likes
10

It seems you know what you are talking about (I don’t know anything about that stuff). If you feel confident, feel free to send a pull request! :slight_smile:

13

Thanks for the reports everyone - @ShaoJie is absolutely right about the required changes. Here’s a PR:

6 Likes
14

This topic was automatically closed after 4 days. New replies are no longer allowed.