topic Re: WidgetManager.js references in Web AppBuilder Custom Widgets Questions

WidgetManager.js references

JamesCrandall — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 13:22:09 GMT

WABDev 1.19

Theme: Launchpad

I'm looking for how WAB refers to the WidgetManager.js file when a page is initially loaded. Is there a specific .html file that refers to it like,

Thanks for any info!

Re: WidgetManager.js references

RobertScheitlin__GISP — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 13:31:13 GMT

That js file is loader inside the configLoader.js, configManager.js, main.js, etc files. There is not a script tag that loads it.

Re: WidgetManager.js references

RobertScheitlin__GISP — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 13:35:27 GMT

In the index.html file there are script tags that call the init.js file that loads most of the WAB js files.

Re: WidgetManager.js references

JamesCrandall — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 13:37:26 GMT

I see. The issue I have is I included a bit of code in the WidgetManager.js to attempt to deal with caching. Anytime I redeploy a WAB with custom widgets this cache issue rears its head and telling users to clear browser cache or use incognito window (both work) is not an acceptable solution.

I updated the _tryLoadWidgetConfig function in the WidgetManager.js with this,

_tryLoadWidgetConfig: function (setting) { var def = new Deferred(); //need load config first, because the template may be use the config data if (setting.config && lang.isObject(setting.config)) { //if widget is configurated in the app config.json, the i18n has beed rocessed def.resolve(setting.config); return def; } else if (setting.config) { if (require.cache['url:' + setting.config]) { def.resolve(json.parse(require.cache['url:' + setting.config])); return def; } var configFile = utils.processUrlInAppConfig(setting.config); // The widgetConfig filename is dependent on widget label, // IE8 & IE9 do not encode automatically while attempt to request file. var configFileArray = configFile.split('/'); configFileArray[configFileArray.length - 1] = encodeURIComponent(configFileArray[configFileArray.length - 1]); configFile = configFileArray.join('/'); //Append date to ensure you get the latest json file configFile += "?currentVersion=" + Date.now(); return xhr(configFile, { handleAs: "json", headers: { "X-Requested-With": null } }); } else { return this._tryLoadResource(setting, 'config').then(function (config) { //this property is used in map config plugin setting.isDefaultConfig = true; return config; }); } },

However, the WidgetManager.js file itself is being cached. So I hoped to apply something to whatever loaded this to force a new version to be loaded each time.

Re: WidgetManager.js references

RobertScheitlin__GISP — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 14:01:33 GMT

So if you look at the source tab and search for WidgetManager.js file (after loading your WAB app) you will see "WidgetManager.js?wab_dv=2.20" so the easy way to manage no caching is to change the "deployVersion = '2.20';" in the env.js file each time you make some code changes. For example

deployVersion = '2.20.070921';

Re: WidgetManager.js references

JamesCrandall — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 14:19:03 GMT

Ok thank you I will give that a go!

Re: WidgetManager.js references

JamesCrandall — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 16:43:29 GMT

I took one of our dev WABs with custom widgets and updated the env.js file line #83 with your suggestion:

deployVersion = '2.19.20210709';

I added the Bookmarks widget to the WAB app, redeployed it and navigated to the app and this is what shows when it opens:

Inspecting the env.js that got loaded, line 83 shows the cached version not what I changed it to.

If I use incognito browser window (Chrome) it opens just fine with the Bookmarks widget!

Re: WidgetManager.js references

JamesCrandall — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 16:57:55 GMT

I then tried to update the index.html with this,

Which seemed to do something! I can see the Bookmarks widget and I didn't get the error as before but now the WAB loads weird like top of the page is split.

Re: WidgetManager.js references

JamesCrandall — Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:26:14 GMT

Robert this looks like it will be the winner on this issue. I had a strange result when I tested but since I redeployed again the initial testing is promising and just need users to validate.

Thanks for the tips.