agent bumped a dependency inside vendor/ and it drifted from go.m

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Someone bumped the module without re-vendoring, so vendor/ describes the old dependency. Never hand-edit vendor/: re-run go mod vendor from the updated go.mod and add a CI check that fails on a dirty vendor tree.

Error

agent bumped a dependency inside vendor/ and it drifted from go.mod  -  the vendored copy no longer matched the module

Steps

1. Check the drift: run go mod vendor on a scratch copy and diff it against the committed vendor/ to see which packages diverge. Expected output: The diff shows exactly which vendored packages are stale.

2. Re-vendor from the real go.mod: run go mod tidy if needed, then go mod vendor, and commit the result as one change. Expected output: vendor/ matches go.mod exactly.

3. Add a CI step that runs go mod vendor and fails if git status is dirty afterward. Expected output: Future drift fails the build instead of shipping.

4. Confirm the agent's instructions forbid editing vendor/ directly; bumps go through go get plus go mod vendor. Expected output: The agent has one sanctioned path for dependency changes.

When to use

• vendor/ disagrees with go.mod after a bump
• Builds behave differently with and without the vendor flag
• You are adding Go vendoring checks to CI

When not to use

• A deliberately maintained vendor fork; document it, do not re-vendor it away
• Missing vendor/ entirely; that is a build-mode problem
• Proxy or checksum (GONOSUMDB) issues during download

Variant phrasings

go vendor directory out of sync with go.mod

vendored dependency does not match the module version

CI check that vendor tree matches go.mod

Why it happens

Vendoring is a snapshot, not a live view. The agent updated the dependency reference but not the snapshot, so builds using -mod=vendor compile the old code while everything else believes the new version is in play.

Edge cases

• go mod vendor strips some files (test files, for example); that is normal, not drift.
• Re-vendoring with a newer Go toolchain can reformat vendor/modules.txt; pin the toolchain version in CI.
• Private modules need the right GOPRIVATE and credentials at vendor time, or the re-vendor silently skips them.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstblLQsSxbB5m4ljnv3argQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstblLQsSxbB5m4ljnv3argQ

Thread query: agent bumped a dependency inside vendor/ and it drifted from go.mod - the vendored copy no longer matched the module

TL;DR: Someone bumped the module without re-vendoring, so vendor/ describes the old dependency. Never hand-edit vendor/: re-run go mod vendor from the updated go.mod and add a CI check that fails on a dirty vendor tree.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR: Re-run verification with a clean build: no layer cache, no warm workspace, install strictly from the PR lockfile. The "cannot reproduce" was a cache artifact - the test container still had the old dependency installed, so the agent never tested the bump. Key the dependency layer cache on the lockfile hash so a lockfile change always invalidates it.

agent marked a failing upgrade "cannot reproduce" because it tested in a warm docker layer cache with the old version still installed

1. Confirm the cache theory: run the bumped package's version command inside the exact image the agent tested with. Expected: it reports the OLD version, not the bumped one.
2. Reproduce cleanly: rebuild with --no-cache (or delete the local install dir or virtualenv and reinstall from the PR lockfile). Expected: the originally reported failure now reproduces.
3. Record the upgrade verdict based on the clean run only. Expected: the failure is confirmed or cleared on real evidence, not cache output.
4. Fix the agent's verify step: make the dependency layer cache key include the lockfile hash. Expected: any lockfile change invalidates the cached layer and forces a fresh install.
5. Add a guard: the verify step prints the installed version of the bumped package before running tests. Expected: logs show the new version, so a stale cache is visible immediately next time.

Use this when

• An upgrade is marked "cannot reproduce" but fails for humans or CI
• Verification ran in a container, cached workspace, or reused virtualenv
• The reported failure mentions the new version but the test env may predate it
• You need cache-invalidation policy for agent verify steps

Not for this skill when

• The failure reproduces on a clean build - that is a real bug, different skill
• The tests are flaky with no cache involved
• The failure is a resolution error at install time

Variant phrasings

• Upgrade marked cannot reproduce but CI fails
• Stale docker cache hid the upgrade failure
• Warm layer cache still had the old dependency version
• Agent tested the wrong version and called it green

Why it happens

Docker layer caching keys on the Dockerfile instructions, not on the lockfile contents. If the agent reuses a warm image or workspace where dependencies were installed before the bump, the test process loads the old package. The agent sees green, concludes the reported failure is bogus, and never actually tested the bumped version at all.

Edge cases

• Multi-stage builds cache the builder stage too - bust every stage, not just the final one
• Bind-mounted install dirs from the host can re-inject old versions into a fresh container
• CI "restore cache" steps keyed on branch name instead of lockfile hash have the same bug

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_lR2Q-U1Y4FnJ33v4j0tQ0A

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_lR2Q-U1Y4FnJ33v4j0tQ0A

Thread query: agent marked a failing upgrade "cannot reproduce" because it tested in a warm docker layer cache with the old version still installed

TL;DR:

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Help Scout Docs by acting on the exact symptom first: search draft collections from the agent preview instead of the public index, and if readers need those articles, publish the collection and request a reindex rather than expecting public search to surface drafts. Do not repeat the same edit, search or run unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one article, collection or query first, then apply it across the affected scope and confirm as a reader.

Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

Use this when

• Work in Help Scout Docs shows this exact symptom: Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections.
• The same symptom repeats after a retry with unchanged inputs.
• Readers or support agents are blocked until this item is corrected.

Not for this skill when

• The help center platform itself is down or returning outage notices. Resolve that first, then return here if this symptom remains.
• The content is correct and you only want a style or tone rewrite. That is an editorial pass, not this fix.

Steps

1. Reproduce the symptom with the smallest scope that still shows it in Help Scout Docs, and record the article, collection or query involved plus the exact wording from the code block above. Verify: the symptom is reproduced on demand with a named scope, not only reported second hand.
2. Apply the specific fix for this symptom: search draft collections from the agent preview instead of the public index, and if readers need those articles, publish the collection and request a reindex rather than expecting public search to surface drafts. Verify: the smallest failing scope now behaves as the fix predicts, checked in the published view rather than only in the editor.
3. Check neighbouring articles, collections or locales that share the same template, category or workflow, because this class of problem rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Repeat the original reader or agent action in Help Scout Docs that exposed the symptom, using the same query, link or workflow as the first attempt. Verify: the action completes and the original symptom does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth for this item, the current product behaviour, price list, release notes or ticket evidence named in the fix. Verify: the published result matches the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the scope it covered and the verification result where the content team works, so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the symptom, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

The verbatim form readers and agents paste from the help center or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the wider rollout.

How to fix - Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

The how to phrasing for the same problem in Help Scout Docs. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the final check.

Help Scout Docs troubleshooting for this symptom

The symptom first phrasing used when the full message is hidden. Surface the full symptom first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Public Docs search indexes published collections only, so articles in a draft collection are invisible to readers by design and only appear in the editor preview.

Edge cases

• The symptom appears in one locale, collection or audience view only. Fix that scope, then check the same item in the other views before closing.
• A cached or indexed copy keeps showing the old state after the fix. Allow for the platform reindex or cache window, recheck in a fresh reader session, and only then escalate.
• Two items have near identical titles. Confirm the identifier of the item you edited, not just its title, before declaring the fix verified.

Compatibility: Help Scout Docs at current versions, plus the help center admin, search or API surface the query names; no extra tooling beyond reader level access to verify the published result.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_cWReNwYpCRpZJTvjf5ojpQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_cWReNwYpCRpZJTvjf5ojpQ

Thread query: Help Scout Docs search ignores articles inside draft collections

TL;DR: Fix this in Help Scout Docs by acting on the exact symptom first: search draft collections from the agent preview instead of the public index, and if readers need those articles, publish the collection and request a reindex rather than expecting public search to surface drafts. Do not repeat the same edit, search or run unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one article, collection or query first, then apply it across the affected scope and confirm as a reader.