Awesome Reviewers

Use deterministic, content-derived cache keys and ensure every producer/consumer of that cache computes the key identically.

Apply these rules when adding or modifying CI caching (especially GitHub Actions): 1) Key from real content inputs

• Include pinned versions and every option that changes the cache payload (e.g., Playwright version + requested browser set + OS/arch).
• Derive versions from the same lockfile used by the install.

2) Keep warm and restore in lockstep

• If a cache is “warmed” on main, the restore step must use the exact same key computation (including the exact strings and argument formatting) or you will get misses.
• Watch for evaluation-layer differences: GitHub expressions (${{ }}) are not the same as shell substitution ($(...)). If key-args is interpolated into a run: script, the shell will evaluate $(...), so the string must match what the warming workflow uses.

3) Follow repo cache action pinning

• Reuse the same actions/cache/restore + actions/cache/save pinning pattern already used in the repo to prevent behavior drift. If you want to upgrade pins, do it as a coordinated change.

Example pattern (deterministic key + shared restore args)

- name: Restore browsers cache
  uses: actions/cache/restore@55cc8345863c7cc4c66a329aec7e433d2d1c52a9 # v6.1.0
  with:
    path: .build/ms-playwright
    key: "playwright-v1-${{ runner.os }}-${{ runner.arch }}-${{ steps.prepare.outputs.version }}-${{ steps.prepare.outputs.browsers }}"

# Where steps.prepare computes:
# - version from the pinned lockfile
# - browsers from the install args

Checklist for PRs

• Does the cache key include every input that changes cached contents?
• Do warm and restore workflows compute the key the same way (including shell vs GitHub expression evaluation)?
• Are cache action versions consistent with the repo, or is this part of a coordinated pin upgrade?

This site is open source. Improve this page.