Document the Go test-result cache as a second, independent cache
All checks were successful
check / check (push) Successful in 5s

Go's test-result cache sits below the Docker layer cache that issue #26
addresses. CHECK_EPOCH forces the RUN make test step to re-execute, but
GOCACHE baked into earlier image layers survives into the re-executed
step, so go test can still do no work. Record that these are two
separate defects so a fix for one is not recorded as covering the other.

Also correct the TODO.md Completed Steps date to the landing date, which
matches the REPO_POLICIES.md last_modified front matter.

Closes #44
This commit is contained in:
clawbot
2026-09-03 21:06:42 +00:00
parent c937cd7a4c
commit d7fb86f0a0
2 changed files with 11 additions and 2 deletions

View File

@@ -21,9 +21,10 @@ fmt-check, and commit.
# Completed Steps
- 2026-08-10: Added `-count=1` to both `go test` invocations in the canonical Go
- 2026-09-03: Added `-count=1` to both `go test` invocations in the canonical Go
`make test` example in `REPO_POLICIES.md`, so the target cannot report a
cached pass it did not earn.
cached pass it did not earn, and documented that Go's test-result cache is a
second, independent cache stacked below the Docker layer cache.
- 2026-08-07: Set the canonical `.golangci.yml` to the org-standard v2-schema
config already deployed byte-identical across the org's Go repos (settings
under `linters.settings` so thresholds like lll/funlen/cyclop/dupl actually

View File

@@ -224,6 +224,14 @@ style conventions are in separate documents:
reproduces a failure instead of replaying it. It leaves the build cache
alone, so it costs the runtime of the suite and no recompilation.
Note that this is a second, independent cache, stacked below the Docker
layer cache that [issue #26](https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/prompts/issues/26)
addresses. `CHECK_EPOCH` guarantees the `RUN make test` _step_ re-executes;
it does not guarantee `go test` inside that step does any work, because the
`GOCACHE` baked into earlier image layers survives into the re-executed
step. They are two separate defects requiring two separate fixes, and a fix
for one must not be recorded as covering the other.
Python example:
```makefile