proposal: x/pkgsite: new source meta tag #39559
Comments
|
How would it affect |
|
You're right that it wouldn't need to affect The base documentation for remote import paths, Go meta tags, and how to obtain them via So I think my original wording wasn't right, but I still think this is very relevant to the folks who work on modules such as @bcmills or @jayconrod. What package to file this under would depend on where this would all be documented, I assume. I also do think we should make this a proposal, since it seems like a pretty big decision to make without the process :) |
|
Agreed this won't affect the go command. The revision parameters tricky, but this already addresses the problems that come to mind (nested modules and pseudo-versions), and it seems like this will work for known major providers. |
|
OK @mvdan, as per https://github.com/golang/proposal#readme I added the Proposal label and edited the initial comment to match. |
The current convention is documented on the gddo repo's wiki. I don't know if the doc needs to live anywhere more prominent or central than that (with s/gddo/pkgsite/ of course). |
|
Closing because we're going a different way. See #40477. |
|
Copy of #40477 (comment): We identified a few important problems with the go-source-v2 idea, most notably:
This makes us pretty confident that go-source-v2 as proposed in the other issue is not the right long-term solution. It's a little bit more module-friendly in that it knows what a version is, but it's not module-friendly enough. More thought is clearly needed. And even if we added that go-source-v2 support today, we'd need every go get redirector to be updated before any links would start working. That's a lot to ask for a design that we're not even sure is right, especially when a better design might not require any changes at all. The right answer might be to display the code directly from the zip files, or it might be to put some info in the zip file that helps find a source display, or it might be something else entirely. We don't know. For now, instead of defining a new tag that will require widespread adoption but still not be completely right, it seems best to get the most common sites working by making changes to pkg.go.dev directly, and then revisit the topic when we've had more time to think about the right path forward. |
|
Gitea now has support for partial commit hashes in version 1.14.0 when it is released. |
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/274956 mentions this issue: |
For golang/go#39559 Change-Id: Id9c2ae0bcac9299565695d79a66f4bf591e60364 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/pkgsite/+/274956 Trust: Jonathan Amsterdam <[email protected]> Run-TryBot: Jonathan Amsterdam <[email protected]> TryBot-Result: kokoro <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Julie Qiu <[email protected]>
|
We changed the "known sites" approach to recognize specific URL schemas in the old version-free go-source tags and automatically adjust them to the versioned equivalents. That approach requires only O(number of hosting softwares) instead of O(number of hosting domains) cases and should scale better. That change, along with our willingness to add custom patterns to the pkg.go.dev source as necessary to match new sites (see #40477), makes this proposal unnecessary. I retract it. |
rsc
changed the title
|
This proposal has been declined as retracted. |
(Edited: now a proposal.)
This issue describes a new HTML meta tag for referring to Go source files in online documentation. It is an official Go proposal, though it doesn't affect the Go language or tools.
For many years, the
go-sourcemeta tag has allowed godoc.org and other source-browsing tools to provide links to Go source for import paths that use thego-importmeta tag. With the advent of modules, thego-sourcemeta tag in its current form cannot be used, because it does not support versions. While we could just extendgo-sourceto add a parameter to the templates, we could also take this opportunity to improve it in other ways.We propose a new tag,
go-source-v2, with the following properties:Structure
For certain common code-hosting sites, like GitHub and Bitbucket, no
go-source-v2tag is necessary. See "Implicit Source Information" below for details.For a module with path
M, the tag should appear in the<head>of the page served byGETting
https://M?go-get=1. The tag should look likewhere:
_, then the repo root (third component) of thego-importtag on the same page is used; if there is nogo-importtag or the tag’s second component ismod, then no repo is specified. This does not preclude serving source files but it does prevent tools from linking to the repo or providing repo-based signals, like number of stars and forks.{revision}is replaced by an identifier for the (approximate) VCS revision. See "Revision Parameters" below for more.{dir}is replaced by the directory relative to the module (not repo) root.{revision}and{dir}, it also supports{file}, the basename of the file.{line}, the 1-based integer line number.{revision},{dir}and{file}parameters as defined above. While file should display a file for people (with line numbers and syntax highlighting, perhaps), raw should serve the raw bytes of the file. It can be used to rewrite links in README files and the like.After a tool replaces a template’s parameters, it should remove doubled and trailing slashes. This should make go-source’s
{/dir}parameter unnecessary. In theory, a site could serve a path differently depending on whether it had a trailing slash, but we are unaware of any code-hosting site that makes this distinction.Any component of the tag’s contents can be omitted by using an underscore.
Here’s an example of the
go-importandgo-source-v2meta tags for thegopkg.in/yaml.v2module:Revision Parameters
Tools should derive
{revision}from the module version as follows:+incompatiblesuffix.Use other version specifiers (like
master) as is.For a nested module,
{revision}is not actually the tag name. A nested moduleNat versionv1.2.3has tagN/v1.2.3, but{revision}will bev1.2.3. The templates must account for this. For instance, ifexample.comserved directories using GitHub-style URLs, andexample.com/mod/nestwere a nested module underexample.com/mod, then its directory template might behttps://example.com/mod/tree/nest/{revision}/nest/{dir}. The first occurrence ofnestis part of the tag that identifies the version ofexample.com/mod/nest.Implicit Source Information
If the
https://M?go-get=1page for moduleMhas ago-importmeta tag that refers to a repo whose domain matches one of the following glob patterns, then nogo-source-v2tag is needed:The templates for these sites are well-known, and are provided below.
There is one problem: for a major version greater than 1, the templates for “major branch” and “major subdirectory” conventions differ (See https://research.swtch.com/vgo-module for a discussion of these conventions.) To determine the right template, make a HEAD request for the
go.modfile using each template, and select the one that succeeds. For example, for modulegithub.com/a/b/v2at versionv2.3.4, probe bothgithub.com/a/b/blob/v2.3.4/go.mod(the location of thego.modfile using the “major branch” convention) andgithub.com/a/b/blob/v2.3.4/v2/go.mod(its location using “major subdirectory”).Standard Patterns
In these patterns, REPO is the repo URL and MS is the suffix of the module path without the repo prefix. These can be determined from the
go-importtag and the path of thego-get=1URL.github.com:
gitlab.com, gitlab.*:
bitbucket.org:
*.googlesource.com:
Sites that won’t work
Code-hosting sites running Gitea cannot be accommodated by the source linking scheme described above, or indeed by any scheme that has only the information available from the module zip. Gitea source URLs are different for branches, tags and commit hashes, and for the last only the full hash will work. Since revisions should always be tags, the templates for a Gitea site can use the tag form of the source URL. But there is no template that will work with the abbreviated hash at the end of a pseudo-version.
While a source-browsing tool could clone the repo and resolve the abbreviated hash locally, that work should be outside the scope of the tool. Instead, we suggest that a gitea.com contributor add URL routes that can work with partial hashes.
The same problem exists for code.dumpstack.io (which appears to be a rebranded gitea).
Whatever software is used for https://blitiri.com.ar/ has the same issues, and one additional one: there doesn’t seem to be any URL for tags.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: