[#24789] Make Prism the default Go SDK runner.

[lostluck]

Final PR that sets the prism runner as the default runner for the Go SDK.

Large PR with all changes, and passing tests: see 27550. This PR should pass everything once all parts of that PR have been submitted.

See #24789

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #27703 (c3520d4) into master (b668799) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
Report is 20 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #27703      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.92%   70.97%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         860      860              
  Lines      104860   104849      -11     
==========================================
+ Hits        74368    74415      +47     
+ Misses      28934    28876      -58     
  Partials     1558     1558              

Flag	Coverage Δ
go	53.69% <ø> (+0.13%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
sdks/go/pkg/beam/runner.go	50.00% <ø> (ø)
sdks/go/pkg/beam/runners/direct/direct.go	72.97% <ø> (ø)
sdks/go/pkg/beam/testing/ptest/ptest.go	55.55% <ø> (+15.87%)	⬆️

... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[github-actions]

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @jrmccluskey for label go.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

[lostluck]

I suspect the Playground examples are unhappy due to the new Go 1.20 requirement that didn't hard manifest until the example changed. I'll have a separate PR for that. There's a few docker containers that assume Go 1.18...

[jrmccluskey]

How do you want to navigate the playground PR? Cloud Build CI/CD is unhappy over there, too

[lostluck]

I'm on the side of "the playground shouldn't interrupt SDK development". It's trying to have things both ways "using a released version" and "using the head version", likely causing the mismatches.

[lostluck]

And the failure in the other one is "I can't checkout the commit the PR is on" which is weird, because it shouldn't be trying to checkout something that is present by default, and then causes duplications in the working client by how it's re-checking out code inside the repo itself.

[lostluck]

I'm digging around and it's unclear to me how I'd actually run any of these things locally... there's a lot of indirection, and I'm a little afraid I'd accidently deploy the playground or something.

[lostluck]

I've overcome my fear, and got the non-cloudbuild version of this task working. Working on it.

[lostluck]

I'm confident that fixes the Go SDK issue. I have no idea about what would cause the commit step to fail though.

[jrmccluskey]

LGTM, I'll leave the merging up to you when you're confident

[lostluck]

I'm sufficiently confident that the issue is likely in how I push branches for merging in this case. Not finding the commit, but passing the previously failing container build is good enough.