DGI9-521: Improved cacheability. #36
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Apr 9, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Having all search result things in the base
ipcontext means that things wouldn't be cacheable between IPs; however, we care more about the ranges in which an IP falls for embargo. By rolling a context to wrap around this concept, anonymous results can be cached/used by other clients from the same ranges (including being outside of any specified range).Unfortunately, the arbitrary "exempt user" thing means that the
usercontext will always be applied, affecting the cacheability between different authenticated users; however, if we indeed did something to allow for larger groups of users in aggregate to be granted access?rolecould handle things at the top-level, but might need other capabilities.On further thought, not sure that this would have a huge impact, given this primarily deals with tagging Search API results at the moment; however, most Search API things are not very cacheable.
When/if applying to the other tagged queries, it could make sense; however, there's not presently a mechanism to nicely tag such queries though we could borrow an approach used in core.