fix(ci): ensure 'auto' toolchain applies to generate

[dnwe]

No description provided.

[stevehipwell]

@dnwe is this intended to support the use of Go 1.21? And how is it different than setting the toolchain in the go.mod file?

[dnwe]

No, this is intended to override whatever the particular developer might have set locally in their environment and to set a policy of "use go1.22.0 by default and then also consult the toolchain directive and fetch/cache that version if its newer and use that", ensuring that policy is applied throughout the generate.sh usage

See https://go.dev/doc/toolchain#select

[stevehipwell]

As noted above, starting in Go 1.21, Go toolchains refuse to run in workspaces or modules that require newer Go versions. Instead, they report an error and exit.

So given that Go 1.22 is required in the go.mod files, why is the env variable required?

[dnwe]

Because that’s an advisory directive that the developer themselves might have overridden locally in their own config by the envvar

[gmlewis]

nit: instead of two lines, can you please combine them?

Suggested change

	GOTOOLCHAIN="go1.22.0+auto"
	export GOTOOLCHAIN="go1.22.0+auto"

[stevehipwell]

@dnwe am I misunderstanding the docs then because they clearly state that as of Go 1.21 it's no longer advisory?

[dnwe]

go directive is a mandatory minimum, then the toolchain directive is advisory. In the absence of a toolchain directive the go directive also becomes the toolchain directive.

In any case the nuance here is that we’re just enforcing a known value in the script to get repeatable behaviour. Otherwise a developer could (e.g.,) set GOTOOLCHAIN=local and have go 1.24rc1 installed and the generate/fit behaviour may differ

[gmlewis]

@dnwe - I would also personally appreciate it if you stopped using force-push in this repo, because this is not the same as what I originally reviewed, and it helps me to see the progression. Thank you!

[dnwe]

@dnwe - I would also personally appreciate it if you stopped using force-push in this repo, because this is not the same as what I originally reviewed, and it helps me to see the progression. Thank you!

Apart from the first time (where I corrected a mistake pre-review) that was just me hitting rebase in the UI because my branch was out-of-date with master. The UI does show each of the commit refs for each rebase

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.26%. Comparing base (2b8c7fa) to head (002e34c).
Report is 243 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3436      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.72%   92.26%   -5.46%     
==========================================
  Files         153      174      +21     
  Lines       13390    15023    +1633     
==========================================
+ Hits        13085    13861     +776     
- Misses        215     1068     +853     
- Partials       90       94       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.