Add the destination in the gomoddirectives text

[ldemailly]

Right now the error printed is

go.mod:11:1: replacement are not allowed: golang.org/x/term (gomoddirectives)
replace golang.org/x/term => github.com/ldemailly/term v0.0.0-20240809182630-68dd89eaaf9e
^

for

replace golang.org/x/term => github.com/ldemailly/term v0.0.0-20240809182630-68dd89eaaf9e

it would be a lot more useful if it was

go.mod:11:1: replacement are not allowed: golang.org/x/term => github.com/ldemailly/term (gomoddirectives)

so exclude rule could be written based on trusting the destination of the replace and not the source

originally golangci/golangci-lint#4896

[ldez]

Your use case is related to a specific context, I'm not sure about the balance between the value and the maintenance of this kind of option.

I can understand why you want that but it's also the result of shared configuration (that I considered a bad practice, it's my opinion) and a one-off action (that you can allow temporarily).

I don't see in which other context this option is useful but I can miss something, so I will wait for other user feedback.

[ldemailly]

how is the error message having only half of the information a specific context issue? what is the harm if the message had the other half like I'm suggesting?

in other words, what is

issues:
  exclude-rules:
    - linters:
        - gomoddirectives
      text: "replacement are not allowed: ...

for in golangci-lint's config for if not to use the information in the messages provided by the linters?
(ps yes this is not the golangci-lint's repo but that's where it's used)

[ldez]

It's the same thing for the message.

For me, an option is the best approach to handle that instead of relying on something that is not inside the linter.

The "destination" is useless in the large majority of the cases.

[ldez]

(ps yes this is not the golangci-lint's repo but that's where it's used)

You must stop with your subtext immediately.

I can understand frustration, and we can disagree and discuss, but what you're doing isn't a discussion.

I tried to understand your problem, I spent time on it, I tried to provide an answer that fits your need and my vision of the solution, so please change your approach.