The first scenario is you standard "the code stays the same, the configuration changes" for the second step. Here, I want
The second and third scenario is "the configuration stays the same, the code changes", this is the case, e.g., if code is refactored, but effectively does the same as before.

@<1523701083040387072:profile|UnevenDolphin73> , you wrote

About the third scenario I'm not sure. If the configuration has changed, shouldn't the relevant steps (the ones where the configuration changed and their dependent steps) be rerun?

I think this is a misunderstanding of my scenario.

In the second scenario I want a rerun, in the third not. For example,

• in the second scenario, I might have not changed the results of the step, but my refactoring changed the speed considerably and this is something I measure.
• in the third scenario, I might have not changed the results of the step and my refactoring just cleaned the code, but besides that, nothing substantially was changed. Thus I do not want a rerun.
  @<1523701205467926528:profile|AgitatedDove14> , your wrote

Scenario 1 & 2 are essentially the same from caching perspective (the face B != B` means they have different caching hashes, but in both cases are cached).
Scenario 3 is the basically removing the cache flag from those components.

I am not sure, but think, this is exactly not what I meant 😄 . The scenario 3 is lenient regarding when to reuse old results. Did my explanation in this post clarify, what I meant?