Skip to content

dev: clean DefaultExcludePatterns and improve CLI render #4638

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 14, 2024
Merged

dev: clean DefaultExcludePatterns and improve CLI render #4638

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 4 additions & 3 deletions pkg/commands/flagsets.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -120,13 +120,14 @@ func setupIssuesFlagSet(v *viper.Viper, fs *pflag.FlagSet) {

func getDefaultIssueExcludeHelp() string {
parts := []string{color.GreenString("Use or not use default excludes:")}

for _, ep := range config.DefaultExcludePatterns {
parts = append(parts,
fmt.Sprintf(" # %s %s: %s", ep.ID, ep.Linter, ep.Why),
fmt.Sprintf(" - %s", color.YellowString(ep.Pattern)),
"",
fmt.Sprintf(" - %s (%s): %s", color.BlueString(ep.ID), color.CyanString(ep.Linter), ep.Why),
fmt.Sprintf(` Pattern: %s`, color.YellowString(`'`+ep.Pattern+`'`)),
)
}

return strings.Join(parts, "\n")
}

Expand Down
61 changes: 30 additions & 31 deletions pkg/config/issues.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,93 +14,92 @@ var DefaultExcludePatterns = []ExcludePattern{
Pattern: "Error return value of .((os\\.)?std(out|err)\\..*|.*Close" +
"|.*Flush|os\\.Remove(All)?|.*print(f|ln)?|os\\.(Un)?Setenv). is not checked",
Linter: "errcheck",
Why: "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok",
Why: "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0002",
ID: "EXC0002", // TODO(ldez): should be remove in v2
Pattern: "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|" +
"should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)",
Linter: "golint",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0003",
ID: "EXC0003", // TODO(ldez): should be remove in v2
Pattern: "func name will be used as test\\.Test.* by other packages, and that stutters; consider calling this",
Linter: "golint",
Why: "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'",
Why: "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0004",
Pattern: "(possible misuse of unsafe.Pointer|should have signature)",
Linter: "govet",
Why: "Common false positives",
Why: "Common false positives.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0005",
Pattern: "ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop",
Pattern: "SA4011", // CheckScopedBreak
Linter: "staticcheck",
Why: "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore",
Why: "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0006",
Pattern: "Use of unsafe calls should be audited",
Pattern: "G103: Use of unsafe calls should be audited",
Linter: "gosec",
Why: "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage",
Why: "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0007",
Pattern: "Subprocess launch(ed with variable|ing should be audited)",
Pattern: "G204: Subprocess launched with variable",
Linter: "gosec",
Why: "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls",
Why: "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0008",
Pattern: "(G104)",
Pattern: "G104", // Errors unhandled.
Linter: "gosec",
Why: "Duplicated errcheck checks",
Why: "Duplicated errcheck checks.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0009",
Pattern: "(Expect directory permissions to be 0750 or less|Expect file permissions to be 0600 or less)",
Pattern: "(G301|G302|G307): Expect (directory permissions to be 0750|file permissions to be 0600) or less",
Linter: "gosec",
Why: "Too many issues in popular repos",
Why: "Too many issues in popular repos.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0010",
Pattern: "Potential file inclusion via variable",
Pattern: "G304: Potential file inclusion via variable",
Linter: "gosec",
Why: "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'",
Why: "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0011",
Pattern: "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|" +
"should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)",
Linter: "stylecheck",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
ID: "EXC0011",
Pattern: "(ST1000|ST1020|ST1021|ST1022)", // CheckPackageComment, CheckExportedFunctionDocs, CheckExportedTypeDocs, CheckExportedVarDocs
Linter: "stylecheck",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0012",
Pattern: `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported`,
Pattern: `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported`, // rule: exported
Linter: "revive",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0013",
Pattern: `package comment should be of the form "(.+)...`,
Pattern: `package comment should be of the form "(.+)..."`, // rule: package-comments
Linter: "revive",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0014",
Pattern: `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."`,
Pattern: `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."`, // rule: exported
Linter: "revive",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
},
{
ID: "EXC0015",
Pattern: `should have a package comment`,
Pattern: `should have a package comment`, // rule: package-comments
Linter: "revive",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
},
}

Expand Down
Loading