jschee · April 27, 2020 22:25
diff --git a/Turbolinks meta head tag b/Turbolinks meta head tag
 #In application layouts
 <head>
  <% if content_for(:turbolinks_cache) %>
    <%= yield(:head) %>
  <% end %>
 </head>


 #On view page

 #For hard reload
 <% content_for :turbolinks_cache do %>
  <meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="reload">
 <% end %>

 #For no-cache
 <% content_for :turbolinks_cache do %>
  <meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="no-cache">
 <% end %>

 #For no-preview
 <% content_for :turbolinks_cache do %>
  <meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="no-preview">
 <% end %>






 https://github.com/turbolinks/turbolinks/issues/418
 Hi @asmith26

 <meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="reload"> tells Turbolinks to perform a full page load. Upon visiting a page containing that meta tag, Turbolinks will call window.location.reload() to request a completely fresh page from the server. All assets will be reloaded and evaluated. This tends to be used when dealing with a third-party library which is incompatible with Turbolinks in some way (see #311 for the background on this).

 The turbolinks-cache-control directive determines the caching behaviour. Setting this to no-cache on a given page means that the page will never be cached. Returning to the page by tapping Back/Forward, or by clicking a link, will result in Turbolinks fetching the page via XHR, merging the <head> and replacing the <body>. Because of this, it is more efficient than a full page load (but not as quick as rendering a cached copy). It is useful if you have a particular page that changes frequently, and you want to be certain that it is up-to-date whenever visited.

 Do they perform the same thing (i.e. always fetch page from server)?

 They will both result in fetching and rendering pages from the server, yes, but turbolinks-visit-control … reload does a full page reload, whereas turbolinks-cache-control … no-cache will render the page via JavaScript.

 Hope that clarifies things.
	#In application layouts
	<head>
	<% if content_for(:turbolinks_cache) %>
	<%= yield(:head) %>
	<% end %>
	</head>


	#On view page

	#For hard reload
	<% content_for :turbolinks_cache do %>
	<meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="reload">
	<% end %>

	#For no-cache
	<% content_for :turbolinks_cache do %>
	<meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="no-cache">
	<% end %>

	#For no-preview
	<% content_for :turbolinks_cache do %>
	<meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="no-preview">
	<% end %>






	https://github.com/turbolinks/turbolinks/issues/418
	Hi @asmith26

	<meta name="turbolinks-visit-control" content="reload"> tells Turbolinks to perform a full page load. Upon visiting a page containing that meta tag, Turbolinks will call window.location.reload() to request a completely fresh page from the server. All assets will be reloaded and evaluated. This tends to be used when dealing with a third-party library which is incompatible with Turbolinks in some way (see #311 for the background on this).

	The turbolinks-cache-control directive determines the caching behaviour. Setting this to no-cache on a given page means that the page will never be cached. Returning to the page by tapping Back/Forward, or by clicking a link, will result in Turbolinks fetching the page via XHR, merging the <head> and replacing the <body>. Because of this, it is more efficient than a full page load (but not as quick as rendering a cached copy). It is useful if you have a particular page that changes frequently, and you want to be certain that it is up-to-date whenever visited.

	Do they perform the same thing (i.e. always fetch page from server)?

	They will both result in fetching and rendering pages from the server, yes, but turbolinks-visit-control … reload does a full page reload, whereas turbolinks-cache-control … no-cache will render the page via JavaScript.

	Hope that clarifies things.