I'm pretty sure status code TTL is an override, using it instead of "use this TTL" is a tad redundan
I'm pretty sure status code TTL is an override, using it instead of "use this TTL" is a tad redundant
DI don't want to override non-200s though
EI think they would have the same effect, this one just makes more sense in my mind
E(note that due to the cache-control spec being super weird you have to do no-store and should not pick no-cache)
Dyeah that threw me off earlier today too
D
Dah, this is probably because I only gave the B2/S3 API key permissions to read and write files, not list files.
ENice, though we dont cache any 1xx by default and I'm pretty sure the TTL override at the top only applies to 200 :P
Either way, good to be explicit like that and its more clear in future what this rule is doing and can be easily adjusted if needed!
Either way, good to be explicit like that and its more clear in future what this rule is doing and can be easily adjusted if needed!
Dalso did this to avoid caching versioned presigned URLs.
EFancy
Dis this the same as toggling
no query parameters
EYes
EThe top option is that setting off, the bottom is it on, the ones in the middle are fun ent bonuses
Dhmm, it doesn't seem to be working :/
Doh wait
Dyep, it's working!
Dty!
DHow can I lock this down to only cache for my Worker subrequests?
DCan't do this
DDIs this correct?
Dthat seems to break caching
Ecf-worker will never work in rules
ESo dont even try
EJust add the hostname as well, the only thing that can request a hostname not on your zone through a cache rule is your own workers.
Hostname contains "backblazeb2.com" should be sufficient
Hostname contains "backblazeb2.com" should be sufficient
DI should probably match by full hostname now that I think about it.. isn't there a chance I could shoot myself in the foot by caching something that's not meant to be public?
EMaybe, depends on the semantics of your worker I suppose
ERule syntax is pretty flexible, narrow it down as much as youre happy with
Dyeah, after thinking bout this more, I'm definitely gonna stick with limiting it. That way I don't have to be scared about another Worker doing fetch and getting private data 
EI believe you can even add secret request headers for each worker and then reference those in the rule
Ddoes this impact anything given that we already overrode stuff in the cache key area?
EI wouldnt touch it, it will cause origin cache-control to start overriding your settings in unpredictable ways
Dso do Cache Rules impact only saving cache results, or does it impact both saving and retriving cache results?
EDid a quick test to confirm and it impacts serving as well, if you dont match the rule then you get default cache behaviour instead. e.g. I made a rule to only cache https://erisa.dev/ html if you dont send
x-test: testingnice, thank you! Is there a special header that only a Worker would have, or do I need to maintain my own API-like key?
ENo special recommendations, I would just generate a uuid and stuff it in the worker with a custom header name that wont conflict with anything else
EThe threat model is pretty low for that because the worker has to be running on your zone to begin with, but if you think you might introduce user generated requests at some point then hey its useful
Dthanks! semi-related, how is it possible that my Worker's cache status is
hit
EDoes the worker make a GET subrequest?
Dthere actually was one edge case where I realized that was possible with code I've written (not exposed anymore, so people creeping the channel, please don't waste your time).
(not exposed anymore, so people creeping the channel, please don't waste your time).Elol
EIts a layered security model
EAll good
Dyes, it makes at least two requests though. Sometimes 1 is cached, sometimes 2 are cached, and sometimes 0 are cached.
EI assume the response to the client is derived from the response obejct of one of those? Because thats probably where the hit is coming from, and then it just gets passed back through and we're like oh okay thats a hit somehow
Dcorrect.
EThe cache logic doesn't run in front of the worker, it runs inside the worker based on your subrequests, so you can technically return hit to a POST as long as the subrequest (which is where cache logic happens) is a GET
Dis it because I'm returning a response with a
cf-cache-statusif so, I'm surprised that's trusted, since it's provided by me and starts with
cf-There is also a really sneaky workaround with the cache api to cache a POST subrequest https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/examples/cache-post-request/
but not possible with native fetch cache
but not possible with native fetch cache
