Dashboards are loaded twice, including all server calls

[FrederikRobijns]

Which exact Umbraco version are you using? For example: 9.0.1 - don't just write v9

10.0.1

Bug summary

When a dashboard is activated for a second (or more) time, the component will be loaded twice by Angular.

These images are from a clean Umbraco install.

This is the first time activating the Examine management tab:

When moving to Welcome, and then back to Examine management, this happens:

Each subsequent activation of the examine management tab will make each call twice.

Specifics

We used a clean Umbraco install, created using the guide here: https://our.umbraco.com/documentation/Fundamentals/Setup/Install/

Steps to reproduce

• Create a clean Umbraco install following the guide (https://our.umbraco.com/documentation/Fundamentals/Setup/Install/)
• Navigate to a section with multiple dashboards
• Repeatedly navigate between the dashboards on the section

Expected result / actual result

Expected:

• The dashboard is only loaded once, all calls required by the dashboard are executed a single time per dashboard activation, regardless how many times the dashboard is activated and deactivated. Actual:
• After the first activation, the dashboard is loaded twice for each activation, including all calls to the server.

[github-actions[bot]]

Hi there @FrederikRobijns!

Firstly, a big thank you for raising this issue. Every piece of feedback we receive helps us to make Umbraco better.

We really appreciate your patience while we wait for our team to have a look at this but we wanted to let you know that we see this and share with you the plan for what comes next.

• We'll assess whether this issue relates to something that has already been fixed in a later version of the release that it has been raised for.
• If it's a bug, is it related to a release that we are actively supporting or is it related to a release that's in the end-of-life or security-only phase?
• We'll replicate the issue to ensure that the problem is as described.
• We'll decide whether the behavior is an issue or if the behavior is intended.

We wish we could work with everyone directly and assess your issue immediately but we're in the fortunate position of having lots of contributions to work with and only a few humans who are able to do it. We are making progress though and in the meantime, we will keep you in the loop and let you know when we have any questions.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot :robot: :slightly_smiling_face:

[nul800sebastiaan]

Thanks @FrederikRobijns - I can reproduce this in v9 and 8.15.1 through 8.18 as well, but 8.14.1 doesn't do this so I assume something changed between 8.14.1 and 8.15.1.

We'd love a little help getting this fixed for v10!

[github-actions[bot]]

Hi @FrederikRobijns,

We're writing to let you know that we would love some help with this issue. We feel that this issue is ideal to flag for a community member to work on it. Once flagged here, folk looking for issues to work on will know to look at yours. Of course, please feel free work on this yourself ;-). If there are any changes to this status, we'll be sure to let you know.

For more information about issues and states, have a look at this blog post.

Thanks muchly, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot :-)

[LegateJD]

Started working on this.

[kjac]

Hi there @LegateJD,

Thank you so much for your contribution ❤️

I can see there are two PRs linked, both of which seemingly fix the same issue in different branches (v10/contrib and v11/contrib respectively).

The PR descriptions also seem identical... I wonder if there is a specific reason why you did two PRs? Any PR merged into v10/contrib will eventually be included in v11/contrib by means of forward merging, so you don't have to do the same PR twice - unless of course there is a very specific reason to do them differently between V10 and V11?

[nikolajlauridsen]

I'm gonna go ahead and close this since it should be fixed by #12730 😄

[ealse]

This issue has been wrongly closed, because the solution has not yet been implemented. Can this issue be reopened or should I create a new one for it.

Since we don't have an answer from @LegateJD yet. I will partially answer @kjac 's question. The first pull request was merged but it contained a bug. So that's why it was reverted. (see also comments in pull request) The second pull request is still open and contains the fix without the bug.

@LegateJD created a second pull request for the same issue to fix the bug. So the first pull request can be ignored.

[nikolajlauridsen]

Yes I'll go ahead and re-open this one, sorry about that, I missed the other PR being reverted, must have been before my second cuppa),

Looks like there is a PR for it though as you mention, so that's lovely, I'll go ahead and mark this accordingly 😄