update golangci-lint rules #252
Conversation
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
force-pushed
the
golangci-lint-update
branch
from
f20c9e2 to
f1aba06
Compare
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
|
I was unable to configure |
jmank88
requested review from
krebernisak,
pedrovsg and
topliceanu
as code owners
jmank88
force-pushed
the
golangci-lint-update
branch
from
f1aba06 to
fdcaad2
Compare
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
had a problem deploying
to
integration
GitHub Actions
Failure
jmank88
requested review from
cedric-cordenier,
patrickhuie19 and
vyzaldysanchez
|
Does this make #246 obsolete? I had a feeling something like this was coming so I didn't merge |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (a *atomicBroker) NextId() uint32 { | ||
| func (a *atomicBroker) NextId() uint32 { //nolint:revive |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ignores the naming failure on Id instead of ID, since we are implementing an interface from another package.
| reusedTimer.Reset(s.pollInterval) | ||
| continue | ||
| } | ||
| s.log.Errorw("failed to fetch from source", "error", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels odd to me - the previous formatting was easier to read
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea is to reduce unnecessary indentation.
https://github.com/mgechev/revive/blob/master/RULES_DESCRIPTIONS.md#superfluous-else
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://go.dev/doc/effective_go#control-structures
In the Go libraries, you'll find that when an if statement doesn't flow into the next statement—that is, the body ends in break, continue, goto, or return—the unnecessary else is omitted.
No, this doesn't affect CI other than the version bump. |
patrickhuie19
left a comment
patrickhuie19
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this make #246 obsolete? I had a feeling something like this was coming so I didn't merge
If it does, I think this PR is a good opportunity to update the sonar properties:
sonar.projectName=chainlink-common
3 participants
This PR enables some new linters and revive rules for things we are already trying to do.