src/rebuild.ts

@@ -46,7 +46,21 @@ export function planned(env: NodeJS.ProcessEnv = process.env): Build[] {
   }
   const control = where["mesh-control"];
   if (control) {
-    builds.push({ what: "control plane image", in: control, argv: ["make", "image"] });
+    // **Every image the lab runs, not only the control plane's.**
+    //
+    // On 2026-09-01 a suite ran with a control-plane image built that minute and a provisioner
+    // image built the day before. The rotation test failed against a real database, and the
+    // failure looked exactly like the change under test being wrong — the provisioner was
+    // creating logins by a naming rule that had been replaced.
+    //
+    // This is the same fault the builder line below was added for, one target along. A rebuild
+    // that covers most of what a run uses is worse than one that covers none, because the run
+    // that follows it is believed.
+    builds.push({
+      what: "images",
+      in: control,
+      argv: ["make", "image", "builder-image", "provisioner-image", "proxy-image"],
+    });
     const builder = env["MESH_LAB_BUILDER"];
     if (builder) {
       // Both of these parse manifests. Building one and not the other is the eleven-hour-old

test/rebuild.test.ts

@@ -13,11 +13,29 @@ test("the control plane's image and builder are always built together", () => {
     MESH_LAB_BUILDER: "/repo/control/build/mesh-builder",
   });
   const what = builds.map((b) => b.what);
-  assert.ok(what.includes("control plane image"), "the image was not built");
+  assert.ok(what.includes("images"), "the images were not built");
   assert.ok(what.includes("builder"), "the builder was not built");
   for (const build of builds) assert.equal(build.in, "/repo/control");
 });
 
+// Every image the lab runs, not only the control plane's.
+//
+// On 2026-09-01 a run had a control-plane image built that minute and a provisioner image built
+// the day before. A test against a real database failed, and it looked exactly like the change
+// under test being wrong: the provisioner was creating logins by a naming rule that had been
+// replaced hours earlier. novox/hq 04-ISSUES/005 again, one target along.
+//
+// Named individually rather than by counting, because the failure this guards is a target that
+// exists and is not run — which a count would not notice.
+test("every image the lab runs is rebuilt, not only the control plane's", () => {
+  const builds = planned({ MESH_LAB_MODULES: "/repo/control/examples/modules" });
+  const images = builds.find((b) => b.what === "images");
+  assert.ok(images, "no image build at all");
+  for (const target of ["image", "builder-image", "provisioner-image", "proxy-image"]) {
+    assert.ok(images.argv.includes(target), `${target} is never built, so the lab runs a stale one`);
+  }
+});
+
 // A repository this run was not pointed at is not built, and not claimed.
 test("only what this run was pointed at is built", () => {
   assert.deepEqual(planned({}), []);