Chore/upgrade golangci-lint to 1.61 #776
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
x/mint/types/params.go (1)
Line range hint
90-107: Approve changes with a minor suggestion for improvementThe changes to the
validateBoundsfunction are well-implemented and address potential naming conflicts with Go 1.21's predeclaredminandmaxfunctions. The updated function signature and variable names improve code compatibility and clarity.The error message modification enhances readability.
Consider using more descriptive variable names to further improve code readability:
-func validateBounds(mmin, mmax interface{}) error { - vmin, ok := mmin.(*math.LegacyDec) +func validateBounds(minBound, maxBound interface{}) error { + vmin, ok := minBound.(*math.LegacyDec) if !ok { - return fmt.Errorf("invalid parameter type: %T", mmin) + return fmt.Errorf("invalid parameter type: %T", minBound) } - vmax, ok := mmax.(*math.LegacyDec) + vmax, ok := maxBound.(*math.LegacyDec) if !ok { - return fmt.Errorf("invalid parameter type: %T", mmax) + return fmt.Errorf("invalid parameter type: %T", maxBound) }This change would make the function's purpose even clearer without introducing any functional changes.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
- x/logic/keeper/features_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/keeper/grpc_query_ask_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/keeper/interpreter.go (2 hunks)
- x/logic/predicate/string.go (3 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/option.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/testutil/keeper_mocks.go (2 hunks)
- x/logic/util/prolog.go (1 hunks)
- x/mint/simulation/proposals.go (1 hunks)
- x/mint/types/params.go (2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- x/logic/keeper/features_test.go
- x/logic/keeper/grpc_query_ask_test.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: lint-go
x/logic/keeper/interpreter.go
[failure] 68-68:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)
[failure] 100-100:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)x/logic/predicate/string.go
[failure] 53-53:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)
[failure] 66-66:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)
[failure] 76-76:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)x/logic/prolog/option.go
[failure] 14-14:
directive//nolint:nilnilis unused for linter "nilnil" (nolintlint)x/logic/testutil/keeper_mocks.go
[failure] 41-41:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)
[failure] 70-70:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)x/logic/util/prolog.go
[failure] 62-62:
directive//nolint:govetis unused for linter "govet" (nolintlint)x/mint/simulation/proposals.go
[failure] 40-40:
directive//nolint:gosec // disable G115is unused for linter "gosec" (nolintlint)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
x/logic/util/prolog.go (1)
62-62: Verify the necessity and correctness of the nolint directiveThe added
//nolint:govetdirective appears to be unused according to the static analysis tool. This could indicate that either the govet linter is not raising an issue on this line, or the golangci-lint configuration might not include govet.To address this, please:
- Verify if govet is actually raising an issue on this line without the directive.
- Check if govet is included in your golangci-lint configuration.
- If the directive is necessary, ensure it's in the correct format (e.g.,
//nolint:govetor//nolint:vet).If the directive is indeed unnecessary, consider removing it to keep the code clean.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: lint-go
[failure] 62-62:
directive//nolint:govetis unused for linter "govet" (nolintlint)Makefile (3)
Line range hint
1-1: Summary of Makefile changesThe main visible change in this Makefile is the update of GolangCI Lint to version 1.61, which aligns with the PR objectives. However, there's a discrepancy between the AI-generated summary and the visible changes:
- The summary mentioned an addition to LD_FLAGS for conditional static linking, but this change is not visible in the provided code segment.
To ensure a comprehensive review, please clarify if there are any changes to the LD_FLAGS variable or any other modifications not visible in the provided diff. This will help in assessing the full scope of the changes and their potential impact on the build process.
You can use the following command to show all changes in the Makefile:
Line range hint
1-1: Verify LD_FLAGS changes for static linkingThe AI-generated summary mentioned an addition to LD_FLAGS for conditional static linking, but this change is not visible in the provided code segment.
Please confirm if there are any changes to the LD_FLAGS variable related to static linking. If such changes exist, they should be reviewed for correctness and potential impact on the build process.
You can run the following command to check for any changes to LD_FLAGS in the Makefile:
13-13: Approved: GolangCI Lint version updateThe update from v1.56 to v1.61 aligns with the PR objective. This change may introduce new linting rules or fix existing issues.
It's recommended to review the changelog for any breaking changes or new features. You can run the following command to check the differences between the two versions:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: DOCKER_IMAGE_GOLANG_CI version update
The
DOCKER_IMAGE_GOLANG_CIvariable has been successfully updated togolangci/golangci-lint:v1.61, aligning with the PR objective.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Fetch and compare changelogs for v1.56 and v1.61 curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/v1.56.0/CHANGELOG.md | sed -n '/## v1.56.0/,/## v1.55.2/p' > /tmp/v1.56.0.md curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/v1.61.0/CHANGELOG.md | sed -n '/## v1.61.0/,/## v1.60.0/p' > /tmp/v1.61.0.md echo "Changes in v1.61.0 compared to v1.56.0:" diff /tmp/v1.56.0.md /tmp/v1.61.0.mdLength of output: 527
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Corrected script to fetch and compare changelogs for v1.56.0 and v1.61.0 # Fetch changelog for v1.56.0 curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/v1.56.0/CHANGELOG.md | sed -n '/## v1.56.0/,/## v1.57.0/p' > /tmp/v1.56.0.md # Fetch changelog for v1.61.0 curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/v1.61.0/CHANGELOG.md | sed -n '/## v1.61.0/,/## v1.62.0/p' > /tmp/v1.61.0.md echo "Changes in v1.61.0 compared to v1.56.0:" diff /tmp/v1.56.0.md /tmp/v1.61.0.mdLength of output: 379
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Extract the value of DOCKER_IMAGE_GOLANG_CI from the Makefile rg '^DOCKER_IMAGE_GOLANG_CI\s*=' MakefileLength of output: 100
dangogh
force-pushed
the
chore/upgrade-golangci-lint
branch
from
343aa34 to
e6cc19a
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #776 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 54.98% 55.42% +0.43%
==========================================
Files 73 73
Lines 2966 2966
==========================================
+ Hits 1631 1644 +13
+ Misses 1241 1228 -13
Partials 94 94
|
dangogh
force-pushed
the
chore/upgrade-golangci-lint
branch
from
e6cc19a to
8b313ae
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
x/mint/types/params_test.go (2)
12-15: Consider returning by value instead of pointer.The
toLegacyDecfunction currently returns a pointer tomath.LegacyDec. While this works, it might be safer and more idiomatic to return the value directly:func toLegacyDec(i int64) math.LegacyDec { return math.LegacyNewDec(i) }This change would eliminate the risk of nil pointer dereferences and simplify the function. However, if there's a specific reason for using a pointer (e.g., consistency with other parts of the codebase), please disregard this suggestion.
17-89: LGTM: Comprehensive test cases with clear structure.The
Test_validateBoundsfunction is well-structured and covers a wide range of scenarios, including edge cases. The use of table-driven tests withgoconveyenhances readability and maintainability.Minor suggestion: Consider adding a test case for when both bounds are equal (e.g., min = max = 5). This would ensure that the
validateBoundsfunction handles this edge case correctly.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- x/mint/types/params_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
x/mint/types/params_test.go (2)
3-10: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-structured.The imports section is well-organized and includes all necessary libraries for the test file. The use of
goconveyfor BDD-style testing is a good choice for improving code quality and readability.
1-89: Overall: Well-structured and comprehensive test file.This new test file for
validateBoundsfunction is a valuable addition to the codebase. It aligns well with the PR objectives of improving code quality. The use of table-driven tests andgoconveyframework enhances readability and maintainability.The test cases cover various scenarios, including edge cases, which is crucial for ensuring the robustness of the
validateBoundsfunction. The minor suggestions provided earlier (returning by value in the helper function and adding an equal bounds test case) would further improve the file, but they are not critical issues.Great job on improving the test coverage and code quality!
exportlooprefdeprecated -- should be replaced withcopyloopvaron upgrading to Go 1.22Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
validateBoundsfunction.Bug Fixes
QueryInterpreterfunction.Documentation
Refactor
validateBoundsfunction for better readability.