fidoboy

Also, when using the option to exclude from server cache the page is being completely displayed in light mode and after this, when it’s totally rendered into the browser it’s changed into dark.

When I enable that option then there is an error into the javascript console:

Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: undefined is not iterable (cannot read property Symbol(Symbol.iterator)) at Function.from (<anonymous>)

It comes from dark-mode.js

• This reply was modified 1 week ago by fidoboy.

I noticed in failed actions log this message:

action failed via Async Request: Unidentified action 12741217: we were unable to mark this action as having completed. It may may have been deleted by another process.

The hook is cache_warmer_process. May be it helps.

• This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by fidoboy.

In my case there is scheduled actions in WordPress in the name of Cache Warmer. My cache_warmer_process_interval (I also have cache_warmer_fix_missing_intervals and cache_warmer_clear_old_actions) is scheduled every 22 hours, but the process is not being started. After I launch the initial warming process manually there is no more being created automatically.

• This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by fidoboy.
• This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by fidoboy.

Updated and it seems to work fine. Let’s see with the scheduler issue…

I’m having the same issue. The warming process is not being scheduled anymore

When this plugin is active with a “smart block” or the “block any” modes, then there is troubles with the loopback and other necessary services that shouldn’t be blocked. It’s supposed than creating a rule to exclude calls to the own domain this shouldn’t happen, but it doesn’t. The plugin is interferring in some way because there is no troubles as soon as I deactivate it.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by fidoboy.

I’ve noticed something weird. When I change from “smart block” to “only log http requests” then the error changed:

Error:?cURL error 28: Operation timed out after 5002 milliseconds with 0 bytes received

So the timeout is not the same. There is clearly something that this plugin is interfering with the requests when they shouldn’t be blocked

What do you think @veppa ?

That may work if there is a fast response before the plugin filter timeout but doesn’t work in other case. There is no way right now to make a hole into the plugin filter to let pass the local domain or any other being specified.

That’s why I’ve suggested to add a new check box or whatever to allow bypassing the filter and to avoid the timeouts like it happened to me.

In my case I’m using a cache warmer plugin and it stops working as soon as I enable the smart block in HTTP requests plugin.

The message displayed into the HTTP requests manager log is this:

“Error: cURL error 28: Operation timed out after 2003 milliseconds with 0 bytes received”

and there is also a

“allow: domain: https://www.whatever.com – allow in: everywhere”

into the same entry. So this is a wrong behavior from the HTTP requests manager plugin.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by fidoboy.
• This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by fidoboy.

This is a great enhancement but it’s not enough. Because the 3s rule still works in smart mode even if there is a bypass rule. For example requests to my own domain, being excluded with a “exclude all” rule, are timing out however because the smart blocking.

You should add at least another checkbox to the create rule form to allow the call always avoinding this way the timeouts. There are some task that takes more than three seconds and that are being blocked right now by the plugin.

• This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by fidoboy.
• This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by fidoboy.

I can’t reproduce it right now and unfortunately I deleted the log. But the error contains only the message that I’ve posted before and the built SQL query

See attached images:

https://ibb.co/yRH84BJ

https://ibb.co/QHcmVH8

https://ibb.co/Smd4641

https://ibb.co/sPLfzZ5

Yes, you are right. That’s why I used the word “alias” because it’s an aliased name for a dynamic query, not a real database table name. The issue is that I was not sure about if it’s an alias being used by Better Search plugin or not. If it’s, then there is possibly a bug when constructing the query because a missing parenthesis