Fix codegen

[dbussink]

Somehow was missed in #16255

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[deepthi]

Looks like maybe we are missing a CI check for this? Can you add one?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.60%. Comparing base (bdcb43d) to head (63e2878).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16257      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.60%   68.60%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1544     1544              
  Lines      197988   197991       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits       135825   135827       +2     
- Misses      62163    62164       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dbussink]

Looks like maybe we are missing a CI check for this? Can you add one?

We have one with the static code checks. I've seen that one fail many times before but unsure why it didn't fail on the original PR.

[frouioui]

We have one with the static code checks. I've seen that one fail many times before but unsure why it didn't fail on the original PR.

Actually we do not have a check for ast_format_fast, I added it via 08f26ab (+ 63e2878). Reverting the fix you did to go/vt/sqlparser/ast_format_fast.go and running the new script yields:

$> ./tools/check_astfmtgen.sh

ERROR: Regenerated ast_format_fast file do not match the current version.
File containing differences:
1c1
<  M go/vt/sqlparser/ast_format_fast.go
---
>