Coverage gap
Redirect caching is tested only at the status-code level. The redirect tests (301/302/307/308) never emit a Location header (grep-verified: no Location in status.mjs), so the cache is never observed correctly storing and serving the redirect target.
Currently tested
status-301-fresh, status-307-fresh, etc. (tests/status.mjs) — store/reuse by status code and body only, no Location.
Suggested test
Cache a 301 (or 308) carrying a Location with explicit freshness. On a subsequent cache hit, assert the response is reused and the Location header is preserved/served correctly.
Tag
[optimal] — RFC 9111 §3 (storing), RFC 9110 §15.4
Filed from an AI-assisted (Claude Code) coverage audit against RFC 9111/9110, under maintainer direction. Absence was grep-verified; the spec section numbers and strength are from model knowledge, not re-read from the RFC text — worth confirming before writing the test.
Coverage gap
Redirect caching is tested only at the status-code level. The redirect tests (301/302/307/308) never emit a
Locationheader (grep-verified: noLocationinstatus.mjs), so the cache is never observed correctly storing and serving the redirect target.Currently tested
status-301-fresh,status-307-fresh, etc. (tests/status.mjs) — store/reuse by status code and body only, noLocation.Suggested test
Cache a
301(or308) carrying aLocationwith explicit freshness. On a subsequent cache hit, assert the response is reused and theLocationheader is preserved/served correctly.Tag
[optimal] — RFC 9111 §3 (storing), RFC 9110 §15.4
Filed from an AI-assisted (Claude Code) coverage audit against RFC 9111/9110, under maintainer direction. Absence was grep-verified; the spec section numbers and strength are from model knowledge, not re-read from the RFC text — worth confirming before writing the test.