+1

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:32 PM ocket 8888 <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think we should get bogged down with the configuration right now,
> that should appear in a PR at some point which will be much easier to use
> as a platform for the debate.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that `pkg` wouldn't run the linter, just that its
> doing so would be as a consequence of building something. IMO, if we're
> going to enforce a linter, it ought to be a part of the build, because code
> that doesn't pass a mandatory linter is therefore wrong.
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019, 16:19 Robert Butts <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think `pkg` is the right place to put this.
> >
> > `pkg` isn't just for building. I think it has that name because it's
> short,
> > not because it's limited to "packaging." It also does things like the
> > license checking via Weasel. It's more like `make`, which also isn't
> > limited to building. It's really for anything that's a series of steps.
> It
> > gives us a unified place to tell people to do things against the project
> > code. Like "To run unit tests, in the root of the project run ./pkg
> > traffic_ops_unit_tests."
> >
> > Also, +1 on linting.
> >
> > Though I'd rather see it not strictly enforced, but rather used as a
> > guideline. IMO it's already hard enough for new people to start
> > contributing. But I've made my opinion clear and been outvoted in the
> past,
> > so I'll remain a -0 on strict enforcement and not rock the boat.
> >
> > -1 on ineffassign. It complains about initializing variables. Explicit is
> > better than Implicit. Even if a variable is immediately re-assigned, it's
> > safer to initialize explicitly. I'd rather see us standardize around
> `:=`,
> > and never use `var`, as it's both implicit and obscures the value. There
> > should also be One Right Way, where `var` unnecessarily creates two ways
> of
> > declaring variables. I see ineffassign as removing a safety, and making
> our
> > code more dangerous, and more inconsistent, not less.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 3:59 PM Chris Lemmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, that's the name, but all it does is start the jobs in
> > > infrastructure/docker/build/docker-compose.yml . Adding it to the
> > > build infrastructure is the right way to make it easy for everyone to
> > > run it in the exact same way, including the CI.
> > >
> > > The pkg script is just a helper that reduces the requirements for
> > > building so that you don't have to keep docker-compose on hand,
> > > handles the return code of the processes, and organizes the log output
> > > into something you can read.
> > >
> > > golangci-lint is the gold standard metalinter for the community. In
> > > general, if it's complaining about something, it's probably doing so
> > > with good reason. It is the blessed replacement for gometalinter,
> > > which was the previous gold standard. I'm +1 on golangci-lint.
> > >
> > > We will want to have additional discussions about which specific
> > > linters we turn on or off. Some of our existing frequent practices are
> > > at odds with a few of the linters and we'll want to decide whether our
> > > practices or the linter's suggestions are better. (Shadowed variables,
> > > I'm looking at you. :) )
> > >
> > > I like having it output the errors as junit-xml for the CI, because
> > > then we can list that as a unit test file and it will make a great
> > > interface for seeing what is failing and when. ("Unit test" is a bit
> > > of a misnomer here, but all the concepts map just fine. Call it a
> > > "static unit test" or something.)
> > >
> > > Add it as an item in the build/docker-compose and people can run it
> > > manually or just as part of a build. We don't really want to encourage
> > > skipping the static analysis when doing a full build, anyway. (It is,
> > > of course, still possible, the same way you can skip the weasel if you
> > > really wanted.)
> > >
> > > We've also got java and perl. Perl is on its way out, so I don't know
> > > that adding a linter and fixing issues there is a great use of energy,
> > > but we shouldn't forget the java code when we're talking about
> > > linting. I've used pmd on java in the distant past, to reasonable
> > > effect, but I don't have a super-strong opinion on the matter.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 3:17 PM ocket 8888 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree, linting shouldn't be a part of package building.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hoppal, Michael <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > `pkg` seems like a weird location for a linter to me. It doesn’t
> have
> > > > > anything to do with packaging/building of the services.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/tree/master/infrastructure/test
> > > > > seems like a better place to put the linter in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/1/19, 12:00 PM, "Dan Kirkwood" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >     It really should only be an addition to
> > > > >     `infrastructure/docker/build/docker-compose.yml` as `pkg` just
> > > passes
> > > > > its
> > > > >     arguments to `docker-compose`.
> > > > >
> > > > >     -dan
> > > > >
> > > > >     On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:33 AM Gray, Jonathan <
> > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > >     wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >     > How do you think the linter process would integrate with our
> > > existing
> > > > >     > ./pkg wrapper if at all?
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Jonathan G
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > On 10/1/19, 10:24 AM, "Rawlin Peters" <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >     +1, I'm generally in favor of shared linters and
> formatters
> > > where
> > > > >     >     possible, and that rollout path sounds good to me.
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >     - Rawlin
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >     On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:28 AM Hoppal, Michael
> > > > >     >     <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > Hi,
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > As we grow our Golang footprint within ATC we should
> > > consider
> > > > > the
> > > > >     > addition of a linter for our CI.
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > As with any linter it provides a lot of benefits
> > including
> > > > > enforcing
> > > > >     > a consistent style, early detection of potential bugs and
> speed
> > > up
> > > > > of PR
> > > > >     > reviews.
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > That being said I propose that we add the linter
> > > GoLangCI-Lint<
> > > > >     >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=bd4100fc-e1a50e37-bd412748-000babff3540-012a587242ed1320&u=https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint
> > > >
> > > > > to our CI. It wraps many
> > > > >     > widely used linters in the Golang opensource community with
> the
> > > > > ability to
> > > > >     > turn on which ones are run. It also supports outputting
> results
> > > in
> > > > >     > checkstyle which is consumable via Jenkins for a visual
> report.
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > To start I would recommend to stay with the default
> > enabled
> > > > > linters<
> > > > >     >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=9e1436b4-c2f0387f-9e141100-000babff3540-944aacd53629deee&u=https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint#enabled-by-default-linters
> > > >
> > > > > on
> > > > >     > the tool with the addition of Gofmt.
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > The roll out path (up for discussion of course) would
> be:
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     >   *   Makefile target within the source code to allow
> > > > > developers to
> > > > >     > run the linting locally as they develop
> > > > >     >     >   *   Inclusion of GolangCI-Lint within CI as a
> > non-voting
> > > > > component
> > > > >     > on every PR (as to not block development when turned on)
> > > > >     >     >   *   Fixing of the current lint violations
> > > > >     >     >   *   Make the linting a blocking voting component of
> CI
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > What are peoples thoughts on the inclusion of linting
> in
> > > > > general,
> > > > >     > choice of linter and the outlined rollout plan?
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > Thanks,
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     > Michael Hoppal
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >     >
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to