-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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.
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
Ready for universal CI #187
Conversation
add traversal fix (sort on write)
Resolve all errors from go vet and go static check
bc0b9ed
to
0a83688
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, except the nolint bit, which should be unnecessary and unrelated. If it isn't, please provide details, because I'm not sure I follow :)
p peer.ID | ||
amount uint64 | ||
p peer.ID //nolint:structcheck | ||
amount uint64 //nolint:structcheck |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what warning is this preventing? as far as I know our unified CI only enforces vet and staticcheck, so structcheck should not be a part of any of this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it gets the CURRENT CI to pass :P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🤦 need to rush to remove golangci-lint, then :P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll remove the nolint comment in the PR where we switch over.
Goals
Fix all go vet / staticcheck errors
Implementation
go vet
Unkeyed fields errorsFor discussion
go-graphsync has some unreliable tests on Circle-CI, and I'm sure those will be accentuated when we switch over to Universal CI, as they were with go-bitswap. So we'll need to do seperate work there.