ci: disable docker image cache

[rjaegers]

🚀 Hey, I have created a Pull Request

Description of changes

The pendulum swings towards no cache 🔀.

The Docker image cache was invaluable when the ARM build was still emulated. Now that all builds are run on native hardware the build time has reduced significantly. As such the cache is doing more harm than it is useful. Leading to invalid Dockerfiles ending up on the default branch and invalid size metrics being reported in pull requests.

This PR removes the use of the Docker build cache, adding a bit of build time in favor of better stability and reproducibility.

✔️ Checklist

• I have followed the contribution guidelines for this repository
• I have added tests for new behavior, and have not broken any existing tests
• I have added or updated relevant documentation
• I have verified that all added components are accounted for in the SBOM

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR removes Docker image cache functionality from the CI/CD workflows, as the cache is no longer beneficial with native ARM builds and may cause issues with invalid Dockerfiles reaching the default branch.

• Removes enable-cache input parameter from workflow definitions
• Eliminates Docker cache configuration from build steps
• Cleans up cache-related parameters passed between workflows

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
.github/workflows/wc-build-push.yml	Removes cache input parameter and Docker cache-to/cache-from configurations
.github/workflows/wc-build-push-test.yml	Removes cache input parameter and its usage in workflow calls
.github/workflows/release-build.yml	Removes explicit cache disabling since the parameter no longer exists

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[github-actions]

Test Results

 4 files  ±0   4 suites  ±0   2m 31s ⏱️ +7s
30 tests ±0  30 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
64 runs  ±0  64 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit d57f0f1. ± Comparison against base commit 55cc8f6.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

✅⚠️MegaLinter analysis: Success with warnings

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Warnings	Elapsed time
✅ ACTION	actionlint	19		0	0	0.64s
✅ DOCKERFILE	hadolint	2		0	0	0.74s
✅ GHERKIN	gherkin-lint	2		0	0	1.01s
✅ JSON	npm-package-json-lint	yes		no	no	0.45s
✅ JSON	prettier	15	2	0	0	0.52s
✅ JSON	v8r	15		0	0	7.26s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdownlint	9	0	0	0	0.94s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdown-table-formatter	9	0	0	0	0.33s
✅ REPOSITORY	gitleaks	yes		no	no	0.94s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	no	0.02s
⚠️ REPOSITORY	grype	yes		no	1	27.63s
✅ REPOSITORY	secretlint	yes		no	no	1.0s
✅ REPOSITORY	syft	yes		no	no	1.93s
✅ REPOSITORY	trivy	yes		no	no	6.97s
✅ REPOSITORY	trivy-sbom	yes		no	no	0.24s
✅ REPOSITORY	trufflehog	yes		no	no	3.84s
✅ SPELL	lychee	62		0	0	1.76s
✅ YAML	prettier	25	0	0	0	1.06s
✅ YAML	v8r	25		0	0	7.94s
✅ YAML	yamllint	25		0	0	0.99s

Detailed Issues

⚠️ REPOSITORY / grype - 1 warning

warning: A medium vulnerability in python package: urllib3, version 1.26.20 was found at: /.devcontainer/cpp/requirements.txt

warning: 1 warnings emitted

See detailed reports in MegaLinter artifacts

Your project could benefit from a custom flavor, which would allow you to run only the linters you need, and thus improve runtime performances. (Skip this info by defining FLAVOR_SUGGESTIONS: false)

• Documentation: Custom Flavors
• Command: npx [email protected] --custom-flavor-setup --custom-flavor-linters ACTION_ACTIONLINT,DOCKERFILE_HADOLINT,GHERKIN_GHERKIN_LINT,JSON_V8R,JSON_PRETTIER,JSON_NPM_PACKAGE_JSON_LINT,MARKDOWN_MARKDOWNLINT,MARKDOWN_MARKDOWN_TABLE_FORMATTER,REPOSITORY_GIT_DIFF,REPOSITORY_GITLEAKS,REPOSITORY_GRYPE,REPOSITORY_SECRETLINT,REPOSITORY_SYFT,REPOSITORY_TRIVY,REPOSITORY_TRIVY_SBOM,REPOSITORY_TRUFFLEHOG,SPELL_LYCHEE,YAML_PRETTIER,YAML_YAMLLINT,YAML_V8R

[github-actions]

📦 Container Size Analysis

Note

Comparing ghcr.io/philips-software/amp-devcontainer-rust:edge ➔ ghcr.io/philips-software/amp-devcontainer-rust:pr-943

📈 Size Comparison Table

OS/Platform	Previous	Current	Change	Trend
linux/amd64	542.33 MB	542.34 MB	+15.33 kB (+0%)	🔼
linux/arm64	498.78 MB	498.79 MB	+13.83 kB (+0%)	🔼

[github-actions]

📦 Container Size Analysis

Note

Comparing ghcr.io/philips-software/amp-devcontainer-cpp:edge ➔ ghcr.io/philips-software/amp-devcontainer-cpp:pr-943

📈 Size Comparison Table

OS/Platform	Previous	Current	Change	Trend
linux/amd64	696.53 MB	696.53 MB	+244 B (+0%)	🔼
linux/arm64	679.51 MB	679.5 MB	1.16 kB (0%)	🔽

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

Pull Request Report (#943)

Static measures

Description	Value
Number of added lines	0
Number of deleted lines	15
Number of changed files	3
Number of commits	5
Number of reviews	3
Number of comments (w/o review comments)	5
Number of reviews that contains a comment to resolve	2
Number of reviews that requested a change from the author	0
Number of reviews that approved the Pull Request	1
Get the total number of participants of a Pull Request	5

Time related measures

Description	Value
PR lead time (from creation to close of PR)	1.2 Days
Time that was spend on the branch before the PR was created	27 Sec
Time that was spend on the branch before the PR was merged	1.2 Days
Time to merge after last review	1.7 Hours

Status check related measures

Description	Value
Total runtime for last status check run (Workflow for PR)	32.6 Min
Total time spend in last status check run on PR	11.9 Min

[github-actions]

🎉 Hooray! The changes in this pull request went live with the release of v6.5.0 🎉