release-23.1: deps: update golang.org/x/tools

[rickystewart]

Backport 1/1 commits from #106256.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

The patch updates golang.org/x/term from v0.6.0 to v0.7.0. The update is in part motivated by spurious nogo compilation errors tracked in #99988.

Informs: #99988

Release note: None
Epic: none
Release justification: fix spurious nogo errors in build

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
• Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
• Patches should change as little code as possible.
• Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
• Patches should not add new functionality.
• Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.

If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.

• There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
• The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
• New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
• The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

• What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
• Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
• If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[msbutler]

qq: is it necessary to re-./dev gen bazel --mirror on your 23.1 branch, even if it is a clean backport (which it seems to be)?

[rickystewart]

qq: is it necessary to re-./dev gen bazel --mirror on your 23.1 branch, even if it is a clean backport (which it seems to be)?

Unfortunately this was not really a clean backport (as there was a conflict) but it was quite close.

To answer the question, generally no. For example in this case only the backport (once the conflicts were resolved) was actually necessary. Out of an abundance of caution I re-ran dev gen bazel on the branch before submitting the PR but it had no effect.

Note that failing to dev gen bazel when you would have to will cause your PR to fail CI, so you can always just backport if you're okay with potentially wasting a little time and having to do an extra CI run in the case that dev gen bazel was necessary.

For (clean) backports, the extra --mirror argument is almost never required even if you do need dev gen bazel. (--mirror causes new vendored dependencies to be uploaded to GCS, but for a clean backport, the dependencies are already there in GCS.)

[msbutler]

Note that failing to dev gen bazel when you would have to will cause your PR to fail CI

good to know!

[rickystewart]

TFTRs!