Idea: cache checked packages to avoid manually passing `--no-verify` to `brioche publish`

[seasonedfish]

Hello and congrats on the recent release of 0.1.6!

I was reading the blog post, and after I read the section on Lazy publishing, I had an idea: what if brioche check had some way of signaling to brioche publish that a package had already been checked? This would avoid the need to run brioche publish with the --no-verify flag, allowing the safety measure of the last-step check to remain in place without sacrificing performance.

The way I imagine it could be implemented is that brioche check would compute a checksum of a project, and if checks are successful, it would write the checksum somewhere in $XDG_CACHE_HOME. Then, when brioche publish is run, it would first check if the checksum matches that of the cached checksum, and if it did, it would automatically skip checking.

What do you think? If this sounds sounds good, I'd be happy to cobble together a PR.

[kylewlacy]

(There was a similar discussion on Zulip a while ago about caching TypeScript runs (#general > Why so slow? @ 💬), although I don't think there's been a discussion about caching the result of type-checking / linting before so this is still a different feature)

---

Overall, I think this is a good idea! ..but I think this is a feature I'd rather hold off on adding for now.

At this point in the project, I'd rather push towards making the overall process faster to begin with first, then adding caching afterwards as a follow-up. I find it's easy to forget about pain points like this when going for a solution like caching (which just mostly hides the actual underlying slowness). A few ideas I'd rather explore first: implementing #319 so we can check the packages in bulk instead of one-at-a-time; trying out the Go-based TypeScript rewrite for faster type-checking.

I think there will be a point where we will want to add this feature though, so I'm going to leave this issue open. Although food for though: rather than caching in $XDG_CACHE_HOME, what if we cached the results as a recipe? That's the basic type we use for caching stuff generally, and that would let us even push / pull the cached type-checking results as part of the remote cache! (...I haven't thought this through enough to know if this is a good idea)

[seasonedfish]

Ah, I see, that makes sense!