fix(gazelle): Support parsing files that use Python3.12 PEP 695 (Type Parameter Syntax) by using dougthor42's fork of go-tree-sitter

[dougthor42]

Replaces #2413.

Fixes #2396.

This updates the go-tree-sitter dependency to use my fork that includes BUILD.bazel files. Specifically, the BUILD.bazel files in the fork include references to top-level code like array.h which the original Gazelle-generated files for go-tree-sitter were not able to handle. I also include the test cases that @maffoo created in #2413 and verified that they (a) fail before the fix and (b) pass after the fix.

The fork is: https://github.com/dougthor42/go-tree-sitter

The branch that includes all changes is: https://github.com/dougthor42/go-tree-sitter/tree/for-rules-python-gazelle-plugin

A couple notes:

• I have a PR open to get go-tree-sitter into BCR here. However:
  1. I'm having trouble getting tests to pass and to get things running locally to validate it
  2. Using BCR would not fix things for people who still use WORKSPACE (right?)
• The fork is mostly autogenerated BUILD.bazel files from gazelle but also contains:
  • manual updates so that build files reference the toplevel array.h and other files
  • replace all smacker with dougthor42 so that go build works
  • various other more minor things.
• I was unable to get go mod edit -replace to work, so I've just manually updated go.mod and whatnot everywhere. If someone with more go knowledge has a suggestion I'm happy to hear it.

[fmeum]

If you actually do maintain a fork with proper build files, we shouldn't need a BCR entry. Gazelle does preserve build files if they exist.

Nvm, thought this was in the BCR repo.

[aignas]

Thanks for adding tests!

Whilst I would prefer it to be in BCR, I understand your desire to also cater for WORKSPACE users.

[dougthor42]

Whilst I would prefer it to be in BCR, I understand your desire to also cater for WORKSPACE users.

I mean, I wouldn't say I desire to cater to WORKSPACE users, haha. If we just dropped WORKSPACE support altogether I'd be super happy but I know that wouldn't go over well with some people.

When we do drop WORKSPACE support, then the BCR-based option is indeed the better solution.