cmd/go: exclude vendor dir from matching `...` #19090

Closed
natefinch opened this Issue Feb 14, 2017 · 80 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
Contributor

natefinch commented Feb 14, 2017 edited

There are some closed issues about this, but I'd like to bring it up again.

Any time you're building an application and you make an update to any package in the repo (of which there are often many), you run go test ./... to make sure you haven't broken your program. This worked fine before vendoring became a thing, but with vendoring, it runs all the tests of vendored code as well. While you may want to do that once in a while, such as when you update the code in the vendor directory, it's generally not something you want to do every time your code changes (because it shouldn't affect code you depend on at all).

I'd like to suggest that ... ignore the vendor directory by default. I almost never want to have any command touching the vendor directory directly - not go vet, not go fmt, not go build, not go test, not go install, not go fix.

If the community feels that there is utility in being able to match the vendor directory, I suggest adding a flag called -vendor (or whatever) that indicates ... should match the vendor directory. But by default, I think almost everyone would prefer it not match the vendor directory.

As we start down the path of having an official package management solution, I think vendoring will get more and more common.... and this will become more and more of a pain.

(and yes, I know you can do the go test $(go list | grep -v vendor) thing, but that's shell and OS-dependent, and ugly, and just bad UX)

Member

mvdan commented Feb 14, 2017 edited

I feel similarly about this issue.

vendor could be ignored when walking its parent, so ./... would ignore it but ./vendor/... wouldn't.

Contributor

dlsniper commented Feb 14, 2017 edited

I would like to add the votes of 21 people that do not want to have their editor run go test against vendor/ at all https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/GO-2366 and 19 others that don't want gofmt to run against vendor/ as well https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/GO-2412. One could argue that the editor should be smarter and send a list of packages to the tool but then why should users be forced to either have to use $(go list | grep -v vendor), which mind you is not possible on Windows, or use an editor to achieve this? WSL does not count as it introduces yet again more work for the user, thus bad UX.

Also, please notice tools like glide, one popular dependency management tool, where there's even a dedicated command to list packages and omit the vendor directory in order to make life easier.

This is clearly an UX problem that the users should not have to face.

ianlancetaylor changed the title from Exclude vendor dir from matching `...` to cmd/go: exclude vendor dir from matching `...` Feb 14, 2017

ianlancetaylor added this to the Go1.9 milestone Feb 14, 2017

Contributor

ianlancetaylor commented Feb 14, 2017 edited

Previous discussion:

  • #11659 exclude vendor directories from wildcard matches?
  • #14417 cmd/go: go test ./... fails on go 1.6 because dependencies are tested
  • #17497 cmd/go: go generate ./... will recurse into vendor
  • #17879 Exclude vendor/ from linters

Marking as Go 1.9 for further consideration and decision.

Contributor

dlsniper commented Feb 14, 2017 edited

I would also like to add that this is what a Windows user currently has to write when using Windows CMD to work around the vendor issue

for /f "" %G in ('go list ./... ^| find /i /v "/vendor/"') do @go test %G

which is a lot worse than go test $(go list | grep -v vendor).

@natefinch thanks for raising this again.

Regarding the usual argument that "./... means all sub packages should avoid making vendor a especial case":

  1. vendor is an especial case.
  2. ./... already ignores folders with names starting with . or _, so there's a precedent supporting this proposal.
Contributor

dlsniper commented Feb 14, 2017 edited

@PaulReiber see this comment: #11659 (comment)

"vendor" is not being renamed. That ship has long sailed.

@ianlancetaylor can you please add #11659 to the list of related issues as hopefully your comment will be more visible than mine. Thank you

Contributor

ianlancetaylor commented Feb 14, 2017

@dlsniper Done, thanks.

Member

rakyll commented Feb 14, 2017

This was overwhelmingly mentioned in the tools survey I conducted last year. Combining all feedback I got (individuals, mailing list questions, StackOverflow, etc), this particular problem was one of the top problems that has been mentioned.

A core function like test that would understand vendoring as a dependency and not the target of testing scope would be huge. It's inefficient to write custom regex patterns to include some portions of code and not others. Increasingly so when you want to operate on subsets of the code base. The ./... Operator forces you to glob all go files with the expressed understanding that you will filter out a majority of the results returned wastes cycles during iterative testing. Given this is a solved problem with tools like glide it would seem like a quick win scenario with tangible returns to the go dev community.

Member

minux commented Feb 15, 2017

Contributor

natefinch commented Feb 15, 2017

That doesn't help for all the rest of the tooling. I don't want go vet complaining about problems in vendored code. I definitely do not want go fmt or go fix changing things in vendored code. I don't want go install installing binaries that happen to be in vendored repos.

The root of it is this: without vendoring, ... never matches dependencies that arent't in your repo, because they're not subdirectories. I just want to maintain that functionality while vendoring.

Member

minux commented Feb 15, 2017

Contributor

dlsniper commented Feb 15, 2017

I've also just got bitten by an issue that go vet complains about code in the vendor/ directory but until the upstream changes that code I can't do anything there thus I'm forced to use the workaround instead of not having to deal with it at all.

And I don't think that go fmt ./... is overused when you want to format the project and make sure it's all consistent inside a pipeline for example.

Member

minux commented Feb 15, 2017

sparrc commented Feb 15, 2017

Then don't invoke go fmt or go fix on ./..., which is very problematic even
if there aren't any vendored packages.

why is this "problematic"? We've never had any problems with it, and we run it on every commit merged into InfluxDB, Telegraf, & Kapacitor.

and I personally don't care if my dependencies are go fmt'ed properly, I only want to run it on my codebase.

Changing the behavior of ./... today to ignore vendor packages will only
introduce confusion.

My experience has been most people being confused by it not ignoring vendor/.

Contributor

mibk commented Feb 15, 2017

e.g.
go test ./... -./vendor/... # using - is preferred, but -exclude also
works.

While this concept could definitely be applied to more use cases, excluding vendor is the real pain IMO. For other use cases go test $(go list | grep -v ...) always does the job.

Changing the behavior of ./... today to ignore vendor packages will only
introduce confusion.
(And there are reasonable uses of ./... to match vendor packages.)

If we don't want to break backward compatibility and therefore prevent potential confusion, could it be tolerable by both sides to introduce a single-character flag for excluding vendor? It would be only 3 keystrokes more to type without any BC break.

hodgesds commented Feb 15, 2017 edited

What about a .gorc file that can be configured with defaults? That way it can be configured globally ( ~/.gorc ) if you hate doing grep -v or set within a package when running tool on vendor/ is desired.

Member

minux commented Feb 15, 2017

Member

mvdan commented Feb 15, 2017

@minux why would you want to explicitly install vendored packages? If they are vendored, they are dependencies and will already be built if vendor is ignored.

sparrc commented Feb 15, 2017 edited

Please note that we do want to build/install the vendored packages

@minux, that's not true, in telegraf I only want to build the packages in vendor/ that telegraf depends on, not every single package in vendor/.

Building every package in vendor/ means that you would have to trim out packages/tests that your project doesn't use.

This is not how it works when your dependencies are in your GOPATH.

Member

minux commented Feb 15, 2017

Member

mvdan commented Feb 15, 2017

If you vendor only necessary packages, then you could use go install ./....

True, but it still doesn't explain why you need the vendored packages to be included. This just explains a way for it to not matter.

Contributor

davecheney commented Feb 15, 2017 edited

Rather than expressing incredulity that people want to use the glob operator, I think it is important to recognise that globbing is a straight forward solution to very commonplace questions like "How can i run the tests for all the packages in my project?", which, until go 1.6, was satisfied by globbing.

Saying that people shouldn't use the glob operator is not helpful as the replacement was non portable (how do you pipe grep on windows?), or relies on an external tool like go test $(glide nv); which also isn't a portable solution.

As @rakyll showed from her research this issue is a major point of confusion for Go developers and that alone should be cause to reexamine the decision.

iand commented Feb 15, 2017

Another consideration is that the current behaviour requires you to vendor dependencies of your dependency's tests, e.g. packages like testify

Related to the above consideration, go get ./... will not bring in those dependencies automatically so you have to go get ./..., vendor the dependencies, then repeat until no new vendored dependencies show up. While it's easy enough to make a custom tool that does this, it seems like it should be unnecessary for the default go toolchain to cause this problem.

It seems to me like you should be able to call go get ./..., vendor the dependencies identifies and retrieved by the command, and go test ./... would still work. This isn't currently true.

Contributor

davecheney commented Feb 16, 2017

@jsternberg if possible I'd like to leave go get ./... out of this debate. I want everyone to remain laser focused on the usability issue of go test ./... matching vendored code.

There are certainly other issues with the Go 1.6+ behaviour, but for the sake of clarity, can those debates be taken elsewhere.

Thanks

mmatczuk referenced this issue in cloudwan/gohan Feb 16, 2017

Merged

gofmt -s -w #384

Contributor

natefinch commented Feb 16, 2017

@davecheney I actually don't want to limit this just to go test. While I agree that go get is a special flower, almost none of the normal go tools would seem to be appropriate to run on the vendor directory.

slrz commented Feb 16, 2017

@natefinch Why not? The list command comes to mind immediately.

@davecheney How can they be separated? Are you suggesting the possibility of making the glob work differently between test and get? Ugh. Is there any precedent for this in the existing code?

Contributor

davecheney commented Feb 16, 2017

I would agree that focusing this only on the UX issues faced by go test is the best move for this proposal.

That said, longer term it would be great if the behavior change becomes standard in other places where the ./... syntax is supported.

But i'd like to see us fix the leaky pipe before trying to refinish the basement. I run into this all the time in many different projects and the lack of a simple solution built into the test tool itself has long been a pain point for myself and many others I know.

Contributor

nathany commented Feb 17, 2017 edited

This is a concern across several tools, not just go test ./.... A holistic solution would be appreciated, even if this serves as a meta-issue with separate issues specific to each tool.

As mentioned previously in @rakyll's survey, my main issue is that there isn't a consistent workaround for ignoring the ./vendor folder with the variety of Go tools.

The gofmt tool requires a list of files, it doesn't work with a $(go list ./... | grep -v vendor) exclusion.

The result is a Makefile with a bunch of different commands instead of something simple.

GO_PACKAGES = $(shell go list ./... | grep -v vendor)
GO_FILES = $(shell find . -name "*.go" | grep -v vendor | uniq)

gofmt -s -l -w $(GO_FILES)
go vet $(GO_PACKAGES)
go list ./... | grep -v /vendor/ | xargs -L1 golint
go test $(GO_PACKAGES)

It took a good amount of time to find the quirks and come up with commands (we're not all bash experts). Multiply that by every team out there running into this. As pointed out in this thread, it gets even worse, in that these commands are not cross-platform.

Specifying ./... and perhaps a -novendor flag across any tool would be simple.

If there is a flag, what it's named, and whether the default is to include vendor or not, I don't have an opinion right now. What's important to me is that the same pattern works across tools.

robbiev commented Feb 17, 2017

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already: what about supporting a _vendor directory in addition to vendor?

If we could get the issue addressed in test first, get the behavior correct and make sure it's working as intended, then i'd imagine it would be easier and more palatable to propose rolling the changes to the vet tool and others.

If we get it fixed just in test or globally, however, i'll be happy either way.

Contributor

cznic commented Feb 17, 2017

First, we've got another special treatment of (yet another) special name the go tool has to handle differently.

Secondly, we saw it has unforeseen consequences.

Thirdly, we propose to fix that by adding another specially treated case.

#Featuritis

Contributor

davecheney commented Feb 17, 2017

Thirdly, we propose to fix that by adding another specially treated case.

I argued at the time, and will do so again that the vendor directory should have been called _vendor/. This would have had less impact on tooling

Contributor

dlsniper commented Feb 17, 2017

I don't understand why we can't consider this as a quality of life improvement based on concrete facts and evidence. It's clear that people don't want tools that use ./... to touch vendor/ at all most of the time.

The question should be: Does it have to be implicit or explicit to omit it? Not if we should do it or it. There's clear evidence that some users have a lot harder time around this missing functionality just by looking at the Windows users and the horrible workaround they have to do.

More evidence this is needed? Hang out long enough in Gophers Slack, read the various mailing lists / issue trackers of various tools or do a Google Search for "go test" exclude vendor to find the 10k+ results around this (can't validate them all but they are there if someone wants to tackle this).

My gut feeling is that this option should be explicit in usage so that the current behavior is not changed for the tools we have and be an opt-in feature, as it should have been from the beginning to include the vendor.

I feel like the issue can be better understood as

"After adding vendor support, there is no easy/cross platform way to test just my code"

./... is not intuitive either, it just happened to be what worked.

Adding the following option to go test would avoid needing to change how ./... works, and would potentially work cross platform.

     -l
         Run the tests on your local files only, excluding the vendor directory.

franciscocpg commented Feb 18, 2017 edited

I agree with @dlsniper and @ScottBrooks. It's better (less confusing) to add a new flag and keep backwards compatibility than changing current default behavior.

sparrc commented Feb 19, 2017

just want to re-iterate that this should not only apply to go test. IMO it would be even more confusing if one of the go tools behaved differently than the others, and I don't think the anybody wants to fmt their vendored dependencies either.

dlsniper referenced this issue in go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin Feb 21, 2017

Open

Exclude vendor directories from tests #2366

Contributor

spenczar commented Feb 22, 2017 edited

I am confused by the arguments against this which object on the grounds that it is "yet another special case." vendor is a special directory. It's just incompletely implemented as such today. Some tools treat it as special, others do not.

I think this is a question of consistency in understanding that vendor is a special directory. That's why people get confused and surprised - they expect the special-ness to be consistently handled.

So: this isn't "yet another" special case. This is the same old one, just completing its implementation.

@mibk mibk added a commit to mibk/g.. that referenced this issue Mar 2, 2017

@mibk mibk Initial commmit 81dc86b
Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 13, 2017

@ianlancetaylor / @rsc et.al. involved in the dev team, could you please help / guide us on this one.

Personally, I'd love to see this landing in time for 1.9 if possible, and judging by the number of voters (according to NoMeToo this should be the way to show support for it), I believe that others would be interested in this sooner rather than later.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 13, 2017

P.S. it doesn't mean the Go dev team has to work on the implementation by all means, just accept / decline it, I'm sure the implementation will follow.

smo921 commented Mar 27, 2017 edited

Some thoughts from a Go user who finally needed vendoring, and probably has no business even responding to this discussion. To preface this: I love the Go community and the language. I encourage people to try it out. I've even presented an intro to Go to my team in hopes we would start writing more Go code. My background is systems operations, not development. I have however dealt with dependency hell.

The TL;DR: Basically what @spenczar said above.

Now, on to my $0.02.

  1. The choice of vendor as the directory name means I can no longer have a package named vendor. It essentially introduced a new reserved word into the language. I don't foresee needing a package named vendor in my software, but someone might.

  2. The first time using vendor/ and running go test ./... I was met with a slew of errors from my dependencies. This led to frantic searching for workarounds and advice from the community. To be 100% honest, I don't care about running vendor tests, they are not code I own, nor are they tests I want to run. Perhaps I'm naive, I don't write software all day long and generally trust library authors to properly test their code before it is released.

  3. Whatever the fix (there are plenty of good ideas), don't let a desire for 100% backward compatibility influence the decision. You've already introduced breaking functionality by using a non-reserved name (vendor), instead of something that the golang toolset would ignore by default (_vendor or .vendor for example)

  4. Trying to encourage people to test drive Go without dependency management (ie vendoring) was difficult. Now that vendoring has been officially adopted the reluctance to make "non-backward compatible" changes to the tool set is frustrating. It is one more strange edge-case that needs to be explained to newcomers.

My ideal solution would be to have the location of vendor dependencies be ignored by the golang toolset by default. The subtree should be treated as if it didn't exist or was read-only. I shouldn't fear that running go fmt is going to modify the source code of my dependencies. Making the default behavior ignore the vendor directory also means that existing tools / editor plugins / etc don't need to be updated to deal with this new special directory.

In the mean time I've done the symlink trick, and renamed vendor to .vendor and then created a link between the two.

Thanks.

Contributor

ianlancetaylor commented Mar 27, 2017

@dlsniper The golang/dep project is overhauling dependency management, I think when that process is completed we will have a better understanding of how to handle ... and the vendor directory.

Contributor

davecheney commented Mar 27, 2017

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 28, 2017

@ianlancetaylor As per comment here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/PaGu2s9knao/Bq4vmFh7AgAJ it seems that golang/dep will not arrive here in 16 months from now as an official tool, and I'm not sure about others, but I'd rather fork the Go frontend and add that option rather than wait that long.

There are clear signs everyone really do not agree with the current situation and we, the community, want to work with you, the Go team, to get this improved for us, all the Go users.

If creating the CL for this issue is what stops us from having a decision on it, then please indicate so, but given how this is a proposal, even if it doesn't follow the normal proposal flow, I think it must be addressed. Go 1.9 cut-off will be here in almost a month from now, at which point it will be too late for us to change anything for the next few months, which can potentially delay it to Go 1.10, that means, 10 more months to get a --no-vendor or --skip-vendor or --omit-vendor flag.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Contributor

rsc commented Mar 28, 2017

I wrote in #11659 (comment):

I think there are two cases:

  1. A package in a vendor tree that is actually used (directly or
    indirectly) by the code outside the vendor tree. In this case I think you
    would want to test the package, just as you test all your other
    dependencies. If code you depend on is broken, you want to find out in the
    most precise test possible, not wait until a test of the main program fails
    mysteriously.
  2. A package in a vendor tree that is not actually used (directly or
    indirectly) by the code outside the vendor tree. In this case, obviously no
    one cares and the test need not run. But in this case I don't understand
    why tools are bringing that package into the vendor tree in the first
    place. I would argue that, for many reasons, dead (unused) code should not
    be copied into a vendor tree. Code that is in your vendor tree has to be
    maintained, updated, and so on. If it's not needed, it should just be
    omitted.

I think it's a mistake to skip the test in (1). And I think (2) indicates a
problem in the vendoring process.

The counter-argument to this is that you can't omit individual packages
when you're using git submodules. But when you're using git submodules I
think you're tying yourself to the target repository quite a bit more and
so it may still be appropriate to test the entire thing.

Obviously from the reactions to the issue lots of people are still running into problems. But why?

Is it because there is dead code in your vendor trees you want to ignore?

Is it because you don't want to test the vendored code you do use?

Is it because you don't want to test the vendored code you do use?

Because you asked: I don't run the tests from the standard library, I don't see why I should run the tests for vendored code either. I want to quickly run my tests, so I can continue developing.

Contributor

cespare commented Mar 28, 2017

At our company we import vendored code without test files, so go test is not an issue. But we have to explicitly ignore vendoring whenever we run go vet, golint, or other static analysis tools. We even have some vendored code that isn't gofmted, sadly, so running a project-wide gofmt also requires ignoring vendor.

Contributor

rsc commented Mar 28, 2017

@cespare, are you running ... wildcard commands for all those, or something else? We're unlikely to change gofmt -r to ignore vendor directories, for example.

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 28, 2017

Is it because you don't want to test the vendored code you do use?

During development or CI it's faster to run only your tests.

If someone decides to change locally a library that they use, then they still want to test the changes, but probably not as part of every build. The test code might be there because of that, or might be there for legal reasons, or might be there because of company policies.

Test code in vendor/ is not dead code, it's just code that breaks the assumptions on how the tool should behave, slowing down the users by a good margin, making it unfriendly for newcomers and there is no way to override it from within the tool.

Contributor

natefinch commented Mar 28, 2017 edited

I want to easily control when I run tests over vendored code. The same with gofmt or go vet. Generally, the code in the vendor directory changes very rarely, so the results of go test or go vet are also going to change very rarely. Why waste my time running those tests over and over?

And yes, of course we all run wildcard commands. It's the only reasonable way to run commands over the full repo, and running it over the full repo is the only way to check "have I broken anything with my latest changes?"

There's currently no way to run all the tests in a repo and ignore the vendor directory. If you made the go tool's interpretation of ... ignore the vendor directory by default, then suddenly it just works. And if you want to run the go tool over the vendor directory, there's only one extra command you have to perform... go test ./vendor/...

At worst, this change would make something that is currently impossible possible, and make the current default into a single extra very obvious command that works on all platforms.

Contributor

cespare commented Mar 28, 2017

@rsc yes for the static analysis tools.

... isn't really applicable for gofmt, right? (If I run goimports/gofmt manually instead of from my editor, which is rare, I do e.g. gofmt -l -w .).

Contributor

rsc commented Mar 28, 2017 edited

@cespare, you brought up gofmt. My point was that changing ... to exclude vendor will only help go fmt ./..., not gofmt -w .. (Sorry about the -r, that was a mistake.)

Contributor

SamWhited commented Mar 28, 2017 edited

A package in a vendor tree that is actually used (directly or
indirectly) by the code outside the vendor tree. In this case I think you
would want to test the package, just as you test all your other
dependencies. If code you depend on is broken, you want to find out in the
most precise test possible, not wait until a test of the main program fails
mysteriously.

Respectfully, I disagree that you would want to run tests on the vendor/ tree for this reason. If we ignore vendor for a moment, I'd like to suggest that generally only the public API should be tested. The internal implementation details should be able to be completely rewritten, and as long as the final packages behavior is the same no one should care (and you shouldn't need to ever touch your tests, because behavior is the same). If you aren't touching your public API, and that's the only thing that's tested, you won't have to change your tests even if you completely rewrite your backend.

Similarly, it shouldn't matter what I have vendored or how I'm using it: as long as the behavior of my public API stays the same, I shouldn't have to touch my tests, or worry about tests suddenly failing even though it's an internal detail due to an update that won't affect anything anyways (or, if it does affect something, it should cause my tests to fail, not just its own, otherwise my tests are incomplete).

This is getting dangerously close to the "my favorite testing methodology is better than your favorite testing methodology" discussion, but unfortunately that's more or less what this discussion boils down too (I suspect).

TL;DR — relying on knowing that a vendored package test fails feels like a crutch that is used to not write complete tests for your own package. This should not be the default.

Contributor

davecheney commented Mar 28, 2017

Contributor

natefinch commented Mar 28, 2017

Notably, if Juju moves to use vendoring, including the vendored code with tests would be testing an extra 1.5 million lines of code that you know for sure have not changed since the last time you ran the tests.

Contributor

rsc commented Mar 28, 2017

@smo921, re your (1), importing "x/vendor" is allowed and works just fine, precisely so that you can have a package (or command!) named vendor. What you can't do is import "x/vendor/y".

@SamWhited, the logical conclusion of your argument is that one should only ever write and run end-to-end (integration) tests, never tests of smaller pieces like individual packages. Obviously, I disagree.

@davecheney and @dlsniper, the point @ianlancetaylor was making (after a brief discussion he and I had) is that once the go command has integrated good dependency management, we hope there just won't be that many vendor directories anymore (the same way you never see vendor directories in, say, Rust projects), so this becomes a much smaller or hopefully nonexistent pain point.

That said, I do appreciate the time scale on that and the significant desire as measured by the emoji reactions to the top post, and I like @bradleyfalzon's analogy.

I think I have found a reasonable semantics and implementation for keeping ... from matching vendor directories (always; no options), and I'll send it out later this week once I clean up the code and the documentation. (It's not trivial. Most people don't realize how powerful ... is: n...t matches not only net but also net/http/httptest.) Depending on how the CL turns out, maybe we can submit it soon and make a final decision on whether to pull it out during the freeze.

Contributor

davecheney commented Mar 28, 2017

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 28, 2017

@rsc Thank you for this, it's really great news.

Contributor

SamWhited commented Mar 28, 2017 edited

the logical conclusion of your argument is that one should only ever write and run end-to-end (integration) tests, never tests of smaller pieces like individual packages. Obviously, I disagree.

That comment got away from me a bit, so I may not have been clear, but I certainly wasn't advocating this. It's both not absolute (what ever is?), sometimes you have to test individual little "fiddly bits" (that's a technical term), and it's often possible to write unit tests against your public API too.

I think I have found a reasonable semantics and implementation for keeping ... from matching vendor directories

Fantastic news; I'm looking forward to seeing it! Thanks!

CL https://golang.org/cl/38745 mentions this issue.

gopherbot closed this in fa1d54c Mar 29, 2017

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 29, 2017

@rsc Thank you for getting the CL done and merged so quickly!

One last small note based on this comment here:

once the go command has integrated good dependency management, we hope there just won't be that many vendor directories anymore (the same way you never see vendor directories in, say, Rust projects), so this becomes a much smaller or hopefully nonexistent pain point.

Currently the committing vendor/ directory fills in a very important role in the software life-cycle: it ensures that the dependencies are always there for building / testing the code on the local machine as well as the CI system (helps with the reproducible builds). It prevents cases like left-pad happening for Go projects.

While I don't know how the future will turn out to be, having the dependencies committed with the application right now is a very important step, especially for companies that want to ensure they are also not dependent on github working or not, or in which their CI doesn't have access to Internet at all.

I can add more but I'd rather not spam others here. Thank you once again.

slrz commented Mar 30, 2017

From the CL comments, on the topic of how to get at the previous behaviour following the merge of this.

You can do something like
go test ./... ./vendor/... ./.../vendor/... ./.../vendor/.../vendor/...
depending on how many vendor directories you have in your tree, where they are, whether there are vendors of vendors, and so on

Ugh. I really dislike this change. Excluding vendor from patterns doesn't make any sense to me, as they're defined in terms of directories in the file system. Also, the previous behaviour is pretty useful sometimes (e.g. with go list) and modifying it in this way is likely to break at least some users' scripts. Considering that a trivial workaround exists to achieve the same thing, is this change really worth it?

The rationale presented in the CL ("by popular vote", basically) is unconvincing and appears especially weak when compared to the careful thought and design that has gone into other decisions concerning Go's tooling.

Contributor

natefinch commented Mar 30, 2017

Did you read this whole thread? There's a lot of valid reasons here. And there's no trivial workaround that works on all platforms for the old behavior.

Russ's example of a workaround to get the old behavior is overly complex.

Most of the time this will work just fine:

go test ./... ./vendor/...

It's pretty rare for people to have multiple levels of vendor directories.

Unlike the workaround for the old behavior, this one is cross platform and works everywhere.

slrz commented Mar 30, 2017

Yes, I did read all the comments on this issue. I'm not convinced. They mostly boil down to "but it'd be more convenient". That's what shell aliases (or whatever) are for. Adding special cases into the core tooling seems like a way too heavyweight approach for tackling such a problem.

The cross platform argument is a red herring. The workaround doesn't have to function on every system under the sun. It only has to work in the environment it is applied to, be that a developer's shell or that build/test script you're writing.

The cross platform argument is a red herring. The workaround doesn't have to function on every system under the sun. It only has to work in the environment it is applied to, be that a developer's shell or that build/test script you're writing.

But it does have to work on Windows, which are the largest population of Go users, and have neither shell aliases or nice things like grep, or substitution.

slrz commented Mar 30, 2017 edited

This hasn't been true for over a decade. Any supported Windows variant includes a shell that, while somewhat different from Unix shells, is very well capable of such things. I wouldn't be surprised if it even provides a grep command by default. It certainly does so for many other common Unix programs (generally as an alias for the native Powershell command with roughly equivalent functionality).

sgen commented Mar 30, 2017 edited

@slrz So with your suggestion windows users will now have to install a shell they're not familiar with, learn that shell, rewrite their scripts in it, and this is easier than you running go test ./... ./vendor/... until a complete vendoring solution is found?

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 30, 2017

@slrz if you could find something simpler than:

for /f "" %G in ('go list ./... ^| find /i /v "/vendor/"') do @go test %G

I'd be happy to hear about it.

Meanwhile, this feature was requested by the Go users, which proved with a fairly good technical evidence that not matching vendor/ in ... is desired or at least have a way to disable that behavior.

I believe that the current way that's implemented offers a good balance of that while still allowing vendor/ to be matched if so needed.

It will rarely be so that you need to type: ./... ./vendor/... ./.../vendor/... let alone ./... ./vendor/... ./.../vendor/... ./.../vendor/.../vendor/... (vendor flattening should be a thing by now in any package manager).

Most likely you'd need to type: ./... ./vendor/... which is still just one character longer than --no-vendor ./... and one shorter than --skip-vendor ./... but it's definitely easier to type / remember than the current way to do things.

Also, special cases do exist today, afaik testdata is one such case (if not only).

So please, try to understand that there are some of us who are really happy to see this, and per the commend here: #19090 (comment) that number might actually be bigger than you think. So a quality of life improvement for so many people while still allowing for the current behavior to exist is a welcomed change imho.

I hope this helps seeing "the other side" as well.

slrz commented Mar 30, 2017 edited

@sgen Heck, we're talking about programmers here. They will figure out something to exclude items containing a constant substring from a list.

Assuming they even want that particular quirky behaviour instead of the one you'd expect from reading the description of patterns in the help text, without the part about this special case.

Contributor

spenczar commented Mar 30, 2017

@slrz this isn't the quirk. The quirk is that vendor is a special directory for the go build tool. This completes the implementation of the quirk.

We were in a bad state previously when vendor was incompletely implemented. We were in the worst position of all - a quirk that was inconsistent.

If purity doesn't convince you, practicality should: In my experience teaching Go and being a local expert in a large-ish company on Go tools, this was an almost universal stumbling block when people went to lint or test their code. Nobody knew to use go list and grep ahead of time, and most of them wrinkled their nose and made some disparaging comment about go's tools.

Contributor

cznic commented Mar 30, 2017

@dcheney-atlassian

But it does have to work on Windows, which are the largest population of Go users, and have neither shell aliases or nice things like grep, or substitution.

Can you please cite some source of Windows Go users being "the largest population of Go users"?

Meanwhile, let me refer to a survey of 3,595 respondents:

When asked which operating systems they develop Go on, 63% of respondents say they use Linux, 44% use MacOS, and 19% use Windows, with multiple choices allowed and 49% of respondents developing on multiple systems. The 51% of responses choosing a single system split into 29% on Linux, 17% on MacOS, 5% on Windows, and 0.2% on other systems..

The windows version is the most popular download of windows/dl. This was reported to me in private correspondence a year or so ago, I don't have access to verify this fact directly.

Contributor

dlsniper commented Mar 31, 2017

Out of respect for everyone, I think we should stop the bike shedding now and maybe open up an issue if we find a problem in the current implementation as asked by @rsc.

Finally, please note that comments like Heck, we're talking about programmers here. are really not in the spirit of cooperation / Go. Yes, we are all programmers, but that doesn't mean we all share the same opinion.

The fact that vendor/ is special is undeniable and if users really really care about traversing that, then maybe they should have to use special scripts instead of those who don't (I've borrowed this last bit from someone who said it in a private discussion).

Lets not have the team lock down the discussion as I consider that to be a bit unfriendly. Thank you.

sgen commented Mar 31, 2017

But I want to paint it chartreuse!

slrz commented Mar 31, 2017

@dlsniper

if you could find something simpler than:
for /f "" %G in ('go list ./... ^| find /i /v "/vendor/"') do @go test %G
I'd be happy to hear about it.

The following should work in a default Windows system, having installed only the Go MSI package:

go test $(go list ./... | sls -NotMatch '/vendor/')

The sls ("select string") seems to be the Powershell equivalent to grep.

@lparth lparth added a commit to lparth/go that referenced this issue Apr 13, 2017

@rsc @lparth rsc + lparth cmd/go: exclude vendored packages from ... matches
By overwhelming popular demand, exclude vendored packages from ... matches,
by making ... never match the "vendor" element above a vendored package.

go help packages now reads:

    An import path is a pattern if it includes one or more "..." wildcards,
    each of which can match any string, including the empty string and
    strings containing slashes.  Such a pattern expands to all package
    directories found in the GOPATH trees with names matching the
    patterns.

    To make common patterns more convenient, there are two special cases.
    First, /... at the end of the pattern can match an empty string,
    so that net/... matches both net and packages in its subdirectories, like net/http.
    Second, any slash-separted pattern element containing a wildcard never
    participates in a match of the "vendor" element in the path of a vendored
    package, so that ./... does not match packages in subdirectories of
    ./vendor or ./mycode/vendor, but ./vendor/... and ./mycode/vendor/... do.
    Note, however, that a directory named vendor that itself contains code
    is not a vendored package: cmd/vendor would be a command named vendor,
    and the pattern cmd/... matches it.

Fixes #19090.

Change-Id: I985bf9571100da316c19fbfd19bb1e534a3c9e5f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/38745
Reviewed-by: Alan Donovan <adonovan@google.com>
eafa5c7

AhmetS commented Apr 24, 2017 edited

My soln till this mess gets sorted is with npm package.json. Something like the following:

{
  "name": "myapp",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "scripts": {
    "test:win": "for /f \"\" %G in ('go list ./... ^| find /i /v \"/vendor/\"') do @go test -v %G",
    "test:unix": "go test -v $(go list ./... | grep -v /vendor/)",

    "bench:unix": "go test -bench=. -v $(go list ./... | grep -v /vendor/)",
    "bench:win": "for /f \"\" %G in ('go list ./... ^| find /i /v \"/vendor/\"') do @go test -v -bench=. %G",

    "start:unix": "go run *.go",
    "start:win": "for /f \"\" %G in ('dir /b *.go') do @go run %G"
  }
}

To test on windows npm run test:win, to bench on windows npm run bench:win, and to run on windows npm start:win

To test on linux/osx npm run test:unix, to bench on linux/osx npm run bench:unix, and to run on linux/osx npm start:unix

mantzas commented May 19, 2017

better late than never!

sdboyer referenced this issue in golang/dep May 29, 2017

Closed

packages are missing #674

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment