[secustor]

Changes

Lets the lookup worker and the gomod manager ask the new gomod versioning (#46392) whether a value is a pseudo-version, instead of each checking the v0.0.0- prefix itself.

• The lookup worker's Gomod dependency updates type are now patch (where digest before) #29034 relabelling and gomod/update.ts use its isPseudoVersion() instead of startsWith('v0.0.0-'). The lookup keeps its config.manager === 'gomod' condition.
• Behaviour change: Go names a pseudo-version without a base release vX.0.0-<time>-<commit>, with the major version of the module path, so a /v2 module without releases gets v2.0.0-…. Those were not recognised: their updates were not relabelled as digest updates, and the update wrote the bare commit instead of the new pseudo-version. They are now handled like v0.0.0- ones (review).
• The go datasource only returns pseudo-versions for modules without releases, so nothing else changes; a proxy that lists pseudo-versions in @v/list would get the Gomod dependency updates type are now patch (where digest before) #29034 relabelling for those too. A value such as v0.0.0-rc1 is no longer treated as a pseudo-version.

The placeholder vX.Y.Z-00010101000000-000000000000 of a module replaced by a local path is skipped since #46465.

History: the check was first on DatasourceApi, then in go-mod-directive, then an isUntaggedPseudoVersion() helper; after review it is the gomod versioning's isPseudoVersion(), and neither the datasource API nor any versioning changes in the net diff.

---

Part of a stack that splits lookupUpdates() into testable stages and removes the duplicated checks around it, now based on #46392; each PR only contains its own layer and lands after the one below it.

Context

Please select one of the following:

• This closes an existing Issue, Closes: #
• This doesn't close an Issue, but I accept the risk that this PR may be closed if maintainers disagree with its opening or implementation

AI assistance disclosure

Did you use AI tools to create any part of this pull request?

Please select one option and, if yes, briefly describe how AI was used (e.g., code, tests, docs) and which tool(s) you used.

• No — I did not use AI for this contribution.
• Yes — minimal assistance (e.g., IDE autocomplete, small code completions, grammar fixes).
• Yes — substantive assistance (AI-generated non‑trivial portions of code, tests, or documentation).
• Yes — other (please describe):

Code, tests and this description were written with Claude Code (Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.5) under the author's direction and review.

Use of AI in replying to PR comments

Who answers review comments:

• @secustor will read and reply directly. Name the account.
• An agent will draft replies and @username will read them before they are posted. Name the account.
• Nobody has explicitly committed to replying.

Documentation (please check one with an [x])

• I have updated the documentation, or
• No documentation update is required

How I've tested my work (please select one)

I have verified these changes via:

• Code inspection only, or
• Newly added/modified unit tests, or
• No unit tests, but ran on a real repository, or
• Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

The public repository:

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 44.116.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• GitHub release
• 44.116.0

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀