-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18k
cmd/go: 'go list -m -u all' in 1.17 may fail due to disallowed go.sum updates #47377
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
Reproduced with this new test case. The module is in the cmd/go test suite, not a real module.
The sum that was causing the error was Debugging a bit, it looks like The function that checks whether a version has a |
Change https://golang.org/cl/337850 mentions this issue: |
The release team is working to include this in the upcoming RC2. |
I also verified that this CL fixes this issue for x/build's dependencies as well. |
Is it possible that this fix introduced a test failure in the post-submit Linux longtest builder runs? I'm seeing failures in linux-386-longtest and linux-amd64-longtest. |
@cagedmantis Very likely. I've opened #47444 to track. Will fix or revert soon. |
What version of Go are you using (
go version
)?(It also reproduces with latest master commit, 0914646).
Does this issue reproduce with the latest release?
Not with Go 1.16.6.
What operating system and processor architecture are you using (
go env
)?go env
OutputWhat did you do?
Using a fairly default configuration of Go (i.e., I'm not overriding
-mod
value or anything), I rango list -m -u all
in a tidy module to find information about available upgrades.(Its go.mod and go.sum files were updated to select modern dependency versions as of a few months ago, followed by a very recent run of
go mod tidy -go=1.17
.)Complete reproducer (non-minified)
What did you expect to see?
Successful operation without needing to take additional action. E.g.:
What did you see instead?
This is a behavior change in 1.17 compared to 1.16. I'm not completely sure whether it's an unintentional regression or an intentional change, so reporting as early as I ran into it in case it's helpful.
CC @bcmills, @jayconrod, @matloob.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: