Skip to content
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

style: lint module path . #15660

Closed
wants to merge 38 commits into from
Closed

style: lint module path . #15660

wants to merge 38 commits into from

Conversation

faddat
Copy link
Contributor

@faddat faddat commented Apr 1, 2023

Description

Works toward: #15546

This PR fixes the majority of the lints in the . module path.


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@faddat faddat requested a review from a team as a code owner April 1, 2023 23:09
@github-prbot github-prbot requested review from a team and amaury1093 and removed request for a team April 1, 2023 23:09
@github-actions github-actions bot added the C:CLI label Apr 1, 2023
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm, left two remarks about the comments misplacements.

@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ func (s *contextTestSuite) TestContextWithCustom() {
s.Require().Equal(cp, ctx.WithConsensusParams(cp).ConsensusParams())

// test inner context
newContext := context.WithValue(ctx.Context(), "key", "value") //nolint:golint,staticcheck,revive
newContext := context.WithValue(ctx.Context(), "key", "value") //nolint:golint,staticcheck,revive // we're going to use the raw strings here for testing, even though that's not recommended.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's instead fix that linting issue and use a struct{}{} as context key.

@@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ func (s *contextTestSuite) TestUnwrapSDKContext() {
s.Require().Panics(func() { types.UnwrapSDKContext(ctx) })

// test unwrapping when we've used context.WithValue
ctx = context.WithValue(sdkCtx, "foo", "bar") //nolint:golint,staticcheck,revive
ctx = context.WithValue(sdkCtx, "foo", "bar") //nolint:golint,staticcheck,revive // we're going to use the raw strings here for testing, even though that's not recommended.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto.

@julienrbrt
Copy link
Member

Hi, thanks for the PR and the time invested in all the other style PRs, just closing this as the amount of conflicts increases and the work is happening gradually.

@julienrbrt julienrbrt closed this Apr 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants