Skip to content
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

cmd/go: suggest 'go get' for packages in the main module instead of missing external package paths #46806

Open
bcmills opened this issue Jun 17, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@bcmills
Copy link
Member

@bcmills bcmills commented Jun 17, 2021

In #45979 (comment), I noted that go get in a go 1.17 module adds its arguments as // indirect.

As an intentional consequence of #45965, we place the // indirect dependencies in a separate section of the go.mod file from the direct dependencies. That potentially makes these new actually-direct dependencies more difficult to spot.

If we saw the import of the missing package from within the main module to begin with, we would add it without the erroneous // indirect marking, and avoid the churn of moving it between sections. So I think we should suggest a command that does that, instead of suggesting go get on the specific missing package(s).

That would also help to eliminate some of the redundancy in the go get hints (#43653).

CC @jayconrod @matloob @stevetraut

@bcmills bcmills added this to the Go1.18 milestone Jun 17, 2021
@bcmills bcmills self-assigned this Jun 17, 2021
@bcmills bcmills changed the title cmd/go: in errors for missing packages, suggest 'go get' on a package in the main module instead of the missing package itself cmd/go: suggest 'go get' for packages in the main module instead of missing external package paths Jun 17, 2021
@bcmills
Copy link
Member Author

@bcmills bcmills commented Jun 17, 2021

This is closely related to #46710.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
@bcmills and others