Update Masterminds/semver to latest 2.x

[nijaru]

1. Ran dep ensure -update
2. Fixed build errors related to semver types in gps, including a return type in gps/manager_test.go
3. The following tests are failing:

---

--- FAIL: TestVersionInWorkspace (1.36s)
context_test.go:169: expected "v0.8.0", got "v0.8.0"
--- FAIL: TestWriteManifest (0.00s)
manifest_test.go:94: Valid manifest did not marshal to TOML as expected:
(GOT): ignored = ["github.com/foo/bar"]

	[[dependencies]]
	  name = "github.com/babble/brook"
	  revision = "d05d5aca9f895d19e9265839bffeadd74a2d2ecb"
	
	[[dependencies]]
	  name = "github.com/golang/dep/internal/gps"
	  version = "^0.12.0"
	
	[[overrides]]
	  branch = "master"
	  name = "github.com/golang/dep/internal/gps"
	  source = "https://github.com/golang/dep/internal/gps"
	
		(WNT): ignored = ["github.com/foo/bar"]
	
	[[dependencies]]
	  name = "github.com/babble/brook"
	  revision = "d05d5aca9f895d19e9265839bffeadd74a2d2ecb"
	
	[[dependencies]]
	  name = "github.com/golang/dep/internal/gps"
	  version = ">=0.12.0, <1.0.0"
	
	[[overrides]]
	  branch = "master"
	  name = "github.com/golang/dep/internal/gps"
	  source = "https://github.com/golang/dep/internal/gps"

FAIL
exit status 1
FAIL github.com/golang/dep 10.427s

---

I believe this gets "[almost] the whole way there."

Going to look over this again later, but some guidance would be helpful.

Referencing #562

[ibrasho]

Change semVersion.sv to type semver.Version instead of *semver.Version in internal/gps/version.go and reflect that in version.go and constraints.go` to fix the first test. I'm not sure what changed after the update, but the versions aren't being equal because the points are different.

In manifest_test.go: TestWriteManifest sets the constrant to gps.NewSemverConstraint("^v0.12.0") while in the TOML file it's ">=0.12.0, <1.0.0". Update the test to fix this issue. Just run go test -update to update the TOML files and update the TestReadManifest test case to the correct version "^0.12.0".

[nijaru]

Thanks for the help! I updated the second test and version specified, and that is now passing.

I see what I did wrong with the first one. I will refactor that and see if I can get it working.

[googlebot]

So there's good news and bad news.

👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there.

😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that they're okay with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request.

Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the cla/google commit status will not change from this state. It's up to you to confirm consent of the commit author(s) and merge this pull request when appropriate.

[googlebot]

CLAs look good, thanks!

[sdboyer]

pretty close - just two things. so far it does appear that my fears of more complex problems were probably unfounded 😄

[sdboyer]

I haven't absorbed the full context here yet, but just noting that these two aren't equivalent. By the definitions used in Masterminds/semver, ^0.12.0 is equivalent to >=0.12.0, <0.13.0.

[nijaru]

Looking at the repo's readme, I believe those are equal. The change may not be necessary if the testdata is not updated, I'll test this out locally.

[sdboyer]

They're not 😄 Masterminds/semver#53

[sdboyer]

(note that updating the README there is one of the last TODOs before releasing v2.0.0)

[nijaru]

Ah, that makes sense now :p

[sdboyer]

let's only update the semver dep in this PR, please

[nijaru]

Fixed.

[sdboyer]

Thanks for the contribution - I ended up merging the other PR related to this issue (#579), in part because the author there had claimed the issue. I realize that "issue claiming" isn't the most optimal way to do things, but we've got quite a lot of people interested in contributing, so I'm trying to respect it as a way of avoiding having people tripping over each other.

I hope you don't find this too discouraging, and are still interested in finding other issues to work on!

[nijaru]

Not a problem at all, and I respect that.

I had some free time on Friday and I wanted to get my hands dirty either way. I'll keep my eyes peeled for more issues 😄

[sdboyer]

awesome 🎉 i appreciate your understanding! hopefully i'll be able to find time to whip some more issues into contribution shape soon...

[nijaru]

Let me know if there's any way I can help with managing the project at all.

I was thinking I could work on documentation to help get people on board with using dep

[sdboyer]

Let me know if there's any way I can help with managing the project at all.

It's a tough thing to split up in general, but right now I have the feeling that there's probably a number of open issues that we could reasonably go back and mark as help-wanted.

Maybe we could take advantage of your being newish to dep: if you could go through the backlog of open issues and just look for issues (not already marked help-wanted) that, to your eyes, don't seem too crazy or daunting, but maybe just need some more info (or even seem approachable as-is). We could use that list to try to marshal up some more issues for contributors.

If that sounds like something you'd be interested in, it's probably best to coordinate in slack 😄

I was thinking I could work on documentation to help get people on board with using dep

YES! We really need this. Once we got the FAQ together we sorta dropped the documentation thing - #331 - but it's still quite important. Especially as we near this first bit of "stability."