You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The local go version is 1.22.4, but github.com/99designs/[email protected] requires minimum 1.22.5. The local module is expecting 1.23.2 (in the local go.mod).
I am then using go run with a specific version of the package to run, like this: go run github.com/99designs/[email protected] generate.
What did you see happen?
When you do the above, you see the toolchain switch to go1.22.8.
What did you expect to see?
I would expect the version specific run command to adhere to the toolchain of the current module, like it does if i do the run command without a specific version: go run github.com/99designs/gqlgen generate (like this the toolchain will be go1.23.2)
Even though it's the same version of gqlgen being run, the toolchain differs.
You can see the difference by running the script in the repro repo.
Go version
1.22.4
Output of
go env
in your module/workspace:What did you do?
minimal repro repo (run execute_run_commands.sh):
https://github.com/wiegell/go-toolchain-repro
The local go version is 1.22.4, but
github.com/99designs/[email protected]
requires minimum 1.22.5. The local module is expecting 1.23.2 (in the local go.mod).I am then using
go run
with a specific version of the package to run, like this:go run github.com/99designs/[email protected] generate
.What did you see happen?
When you do the above, you see the toolchain switch to go1.22.8.
What did you expect to see?
I would expect the version specific run command to adhere to the toolchain of the current module, like it does if i do the run command without a specific version:
go run github.com/99designs/gqlgen generate
(like this the toolchain will be go1.23.2)Even though it's the same version of gqlgen being run, the toolchain differs.
You can see the difference by running the script in the repro repo.
Might be related to #69051
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: