staticcheck

[coryschwartz]

This fixes small problems picked up by staticcheck.
The ones that remain are for the generated protobuf file, which I haven't regenerated.

For context: protocol/.github#41

◉ staticcheck ./...
pb/merkledag.pb.go:213:10: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:217:11: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:222:10: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:226:11: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:231:10: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:309:10: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:313:11: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)
pb/merkledag.pb.go:317:10: error strings should not be capitalized (ST1005)

[welcome]

Thank you for submitting this PR!
A maintainer will be here shortly to review it.
We are super grateful, but we are also overloaded! Help us by making sure that:

• The context for this PR is clear, with relevant discussion, decisions
  and stakeholders linked/mentioned.

• Your contribution itself is clear (code comments, self-review for the
  rest) and in its best form. Follow the code contribution
  guidelines
  if they apply.

Getting other community members to do a review would be great help too on complex PRs (you can ask in the chats/forums). If you are unsure about something, just leave us a comment.
Next steps:

• A maintainer will triage and assign priority to this PR, commenting on
  any missing things and potentially assigning a reviewer for high
  priority items.

• The PR gets reviews, discussed and approvals as needed.

• The PR is merged by maintainers when it has been approved and comments addressed.

We currently aim to provide initial feedback/triaging within two business days. Please keep an eye on any labelling actions, as these will indicate priorities and status of your contribution.
We are very grateful for your contribution!

[mvdan]

I think we don't want to re-generate that protobuf code on purpose, to prevent changing CIDs.

[marten-seemann]

@mvdan This will fail on CI though. Any suggestion how to proceed here?

[mvdan]

Right. I think we have two options:

1. Manually fix the code to have no warnings, while being extra careful that we're not changing the behavior of the code in any way. The tests should cover most mistakes here, but I think we should also get 2+ thorough reviews.

2. Mark the entire file as "nolint" with staticcheck, assuming that's possible.

Option 2 is probably the easiest, assuming that none of the warnings point at real bugs.

[marten-seemann]

2. Mark the entire file as "nolint" with staticcheck, assuming that's possible.

According to https://staticcheck.io/docs, we could create a config file. Not sure if that allows us to exclude files though.

[mvdan]

There are comment directives to disable a check for the entire file: https://staticcheck.io/docs#file-based-linter-directives

[marten-seemann]

Apparently it's not possible to disable a rule for a specific file (but it might be possible to do it for an entire directory, which would work here): dominikh/go-tools#429. Fun fact: @mvdan participated in that discussion 1.5 years ago.
I have to admit I failed to figure out how to write such a rule in TOML though.

[mvdan]

What about that //lint:file-ignore I linked to in my last comment?

[marten-seemann]

-: Near line 0 (last key parsed ''): bare keys cannot contain '/' (compile)

Doesn't seem to be valid TOML.

[mvdan]

That goes in the Go source file, not a TOML config.

[marten-seemann]

That might work, but I'd like to avoid editing generated files. We have a lot of protobuf files across our code base.

[mvdan]

I would hope that this kind of thing is only necessary for go-merkledag's ancient gogo-protobuf generated code though. Most other repos should be using a recent protoc-gen-go version, which I hope does not generate any vet or staticcheck warnings.

[Stebalien]

That might work, but I'd like to avoid editing generated files. We have a lot of protobuf files across our code base.

We've already intentionally edited this file to ensure that we'll fail a test if we try to regenerate it. Essentially, I don't consider it to be an "autogenerated" file at this point. I'll file a new PR to remove that comment....

[rvagg]

#71