Bug: Ignore dependency rule

@ockhamdesign thanks for letting me know about a potential bug. I’m frankly surprised as this has been tested many times and it shouldn’t take any action if the asset is not unloaded.

The feature ‘Ignore dependency rule and keep the “children” loaded’ should take effect only if the asset is marked for unloading. I know, it’s confusing that the checkbox is ticked in other pages where the asset is in fact loaded. But it shouldn’t take any effect. If the asset is not marked for unloading (either per page, everywhere, etc.), then by default is loaded anyway.

I’ll make some proper tests and get back to you. If it’s indeed an issue, it will be fixed and added to the next version.

@ockhamdesign I’ve been making tests and all worked smoothly, just as it did before. So, I went on a post, unloaded a JS and ticked the checkbox to not unload any of its children. On that post, the parent JS file was unloaded, but its “children” loaded, exactly how it should work.

Then, I went to a different post and noticed the ‘Ignore dependency rule and keep the “children” loaded’ is checked, which is normal as you have chosen this option to apply IN CASE the parent file is unloaded. However, if the parent file is not unloaded then it loads fine on the second post. Its “children” are also loaded IF they are not marked for unloading.

I know, the checkbox is showing up (it doesn’t have any effect at all as the asset is already loaded) and it can be confusing to show for loaded JS. In future versions it could be hidden UNTIL you mark the assets for unloading. Once you click “Unload on this page” or other unload rules, then the checkbox would show up.

Nothing was broken on my tests. In your tests, which of the files are unloaded (when they shouldn’t be unloaded) or loaded (when they should be unloaded)? Perhaps something else is interfering with any console errors you might be getting. Let me know and I’d be happy to check this further!