Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Failed to go get client #8573

Closed
Gobonoid opened this issue Sep 19, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

Failed to go get client #8573

Gobonoid opened this issue Sep 19, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@Gobonoid
Copy link

Gobonoid commented Sep 19, 2017

Bug? - Failing to get client

go get github.com/coreos/etcd/client
On my computer and on CI. Go version 1.8.3. Are there any changes I should be aware of ?

go get -u github.com/coreos/etcd/client
# github.com/coreos/etcd/client
../../coreos/etcd/client/keys.generated.go:192: too many arguments in call to r.DecodeBytes
	have ([]byte, bool, bool)
	want ([]byte, bool)
../../coreos/etcd/client/keys.generated.go:604: too many arguments in call to r.DecodeBytes
	have ([]byte, bool, bool)
	want ([]byte, bool)
../../coreos/etcd/client/keys.generated.go:994: assignment count mismatch: 2 = 1

Kind regards,
M.

@Gobonoid
Copy link
Author

Bah. 1.9+ required shown in documentation. Sorry to bother.

@Gobonoid Gobonoid reopened this Sep 19, 2017
@Gobonoid
Copy link
Author

go get -u github.com/coreos/etcd/client
# github.com/coreos/etcd/client
../../coreos/etcd/client/keys.generated.go:192: too many arguments in call to r.DecodeBytes
	have ([]byte, bool, bool)
	want ([]byte, bool)
../../coreos/etcd/client/keys.generated.go:604: too many arguments in call to r.DecodeBytes
	have ([]byte, bool, bool)
	want ([]byte, bool)
../../coreos/etcd/client/keys.generated.go:994: assignment count mismatch: 2 = 1
go version
go version go1.9 darwin/amd64

@abronan
Copy link
Contributor

abronan commented Sep 19, 2017

Experiencing the same thing here with go 1.9

@ggirtsou
Copy link

ggirtsou commented Sep 19, 2017

@lsytj0413
Copy link
Contributor

same problem here

abronan added a commit to abronan/etcd that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2017
Major updates to ugorji/go changed the signature of some
methods, resulting in the build failing for etcd/client.

We regenerate the sources using codecgen to reflect on the
new changes.

Fixes etcd-io#8573

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Beslic <abeslic@abronan.com>
abronan added a commit to abronan/etcd that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2017
Major updates to ugorji/go changed the signature of some
methods, resulting in the build failing for etcd/client
with default installation of the codec.

We regenerate the sources using codecgen with the new version
to reflect on the new changes.

Fixes etcd-io#8573

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Beslic <abeslic@abronan.com>
abronan added a commit to abronan/etcd that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2017
Major updates to ugorji/go changed the signature of some
methods, resulting in the build failing for etcd/client
with default installation of the codec.

We regenerate the sources using codecgen with the new version
to reflect on the new changes.

Fixes etcd-io#8573

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Beslic <abeslic@abronan.com>
@nulladmin
Copy link

I just got bitten by this too. Go 1.9 amd64

As a possibly interesting side note that ugorji/codec import adds 6.5M to the size of my binaries, basically doubling them in size. It's imported by both etcd and prometheus packages and is by far the largest sized import. If you're using only a limited functionallity from that package (I don't know if you are) then it may be worth reducing your dependency on pulling in the whole package.

This can tell you the binary size of each package in your build:

$: evalgo build -work -a 2>&1&& find $WORK -type f -name "*.a" | xargs -I{} du -hxs "{}" | sort -rh | sed -e s:${WORK}/::g

@gyuho
Copy link
Contributor

gyuho commented Sep 20, 2017

@nulladmin What etcd packages are you vendoring? If you think it's unusual, please open a new issue. Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants