fix: remove stale golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.36.0 entry from go.sum#399
fix: remove stale golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.36.0 entry from go.sum#399vanshika2720 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Welcome @vanshika2720! It looks like this is your first PR to volcano-sh/agentcube 🎉 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request cleans up the go.sum file by removing the unused golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.36.0 dependency. There are no review comments, and I have no feedback to provide.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
go.mod pins golang.org/x/oauth2 at v0.32.0 (an indirect dependency via github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3). A stale v0.36.0 checksum pair was introduced in commit e49e608 when the OIDC feature was merged without running go mod tidy beforehand. The codegen-check CI job executes 'make gen-check', which internally runs 'go mod tidy' (via the generate target) and then checks 'git diff --exit-code'. Because go mod tidy removes the unreachable v0.36.0 entry, the working tree is always dirty after code generation, causing the check to fail with exit code 1. This commit applies 'go mod tidy' to bring go.sum back in sync with go.mod. No dependencies are added or changed; only the stale v0.36.0 checksum entries are removed. Fixes the Codegen Check CI failure that blocks PR volcano-sh#393. Signed-off-by: Vanshika <pahalvanshikaa@gmail.com>
|
@zhzhuang-zju can you review this? |
|
/cc @RainbowMango |
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #399 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 47.57% 58.57% +11.00%
===========================================
Files 30 37 +7
Lines 2819 3491 +672
===========================================
+ Hits 1341 2045 +704
+ Misses 1338 1237 -101
- Partials 140 209 +69
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Hi @vanshika2720, removing the stale entry from |
|
kindly ping @vanshika2720 |
#411 I opened this PR fixing this issue, if you want to collaborate, you can @vanshika2720 |
|
LGTM I think we could merge this PR first, and then we can rebase #411 and #393. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR removes stale
golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.36.0checksum entries fromgo.sum.The repository currently requires
golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.32.0through transitive dependencies, whilego.sumstill contains checksum entries forv0.36.0that are not part of the active dependency graph.The
codegen-checkCI job executesmake gen-check, which runsgo mod tidyas part of the generation workflow and then validates that the repository is clean usinggit diff --exit-code.Because
go mod tidyremoves the unusedv0.36.0checksum entries, the working tree becomes dirty and the final diff check fails. As a result, the Codegen Check workflow fails even though no generated artifacts require updates.This PR applies
go mod tidyand commits the resulting cleanup so thatgo.sumis consistent with the current module graph.Changes:
golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.36.0checksum entries fromgo.sumWhich issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes the Codegen Check CI failure affecting PR #393 and most of the PR's
#392
Special notes for your reviewer:
go mod tidyonly removes the unusedgolang.org/x/oauth2 v0.36.0checksum entries.make gen-checksucceeds after this cleanup.Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: