- Issue created by @justcaldwell
- Status changed to Needs review
3 months ago 4:05pm 12 September 2024 - πΊπΈUnited States danflanagan8 St. Louis, US
> All credit goes to @danflanagan8 for the fix.
Don't forget that I should also get all the credit for the regression!!!
- πΊπΈUnited States justcaldwell Austin, Texas
LOL! All's well that ends well.
- Status changed to RTBC
3 months ago 4:10pm 12 September 2024 - πΊπΈUnited States danflanagan8 St. Louis, US
That MR looks correct to me, @justcaldwell.
I don't know if it's really legal for me to RTBC this. I guess I'm asserting that the MR contains the code I posted on the other issue and that you tested on the other issue.
- πΊπΈUnited States justcaldwell Austin, Texas
Confirming that I tested in our environment and the fix restored previous performance. +1 RTBC.
- Status changed to Needs work
3 months ago 6:45pm 12 September 2024 - πΊπΈUnited States justcaldwell Austin, Texas
I'll have to defer to stronger minds on that one. The API docs for
getCacheTags()
read:The cache tags associated with this object.
When this object is modified, these cache tags will be invalidated [emphasis mine].
I guess it's not clear to me what role a filter should have in invaliding cache tags. In this case, the list of node types.
- πΊπΈUnited States danflanagan8 St. Louis, US
That doc doesn't really describe this use of getCacheTags unfortunately. This is the usage where we're saying, "Cache the result of this until these tags are invalidated." If any node type has its configuration updated, it's possible that the list of micronode types has changed and so we can no longer trust the cached results of the filter.
- Status changed to Needs review
3 months ago 7:56pm 12 September 2024 - πΊπΈUnited States justcaldwell Austin, Texas
Well, when you put it that way, it absolutely makes sense!
I updated the MR and did a bit of testing on my end. Definitely no detrimental effects, but the view returned appropriate results with or without getCacheTags. (I toggled the "Is microcontent" setting of an entity to test.)
Could be our view isn't getting cached in any case for some other reason.
- Status changed to RTBC
3 months ago 8:19pm 12 September 2024 - πΊπΈUnited States danflanagan8 St. Louis, US
> Could be our view isn't getting cached in any case for some other reason.
Yeah, I was wondering myself why the tests didn't fail without this. The views in the test module all have caching configured correctly, from what I can tell. There's at least some chance that the presence of the "content type" filter on the View would result in the
config:node_type_list
cache tag getting added to the page. That's my best guess, but just a guess.Thanks for making the change!
- First commit to issue fork.
-
marcoscano β
committed ad6f6056 on 1.0.x authored by
justcaldwell β
Issue #3473921 by justcaldwell, danflanagan8: Degraded query performance...
-
marcoscano β
committed ad6f6056 on 1.0.x authored by
justcaldwell β
- Status changed to Fixed
3 months ago 7:45am 13 September 2024 - πͺπΈSpain marcoscano Barcelona, Spain
Looks good to me! Thanks for the quick fix!
Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.