@@ -14,93 +14,92 @@ var DefaultExcludePatterns = []ExcludePattern{
1414 Pattern : "Error return value of .((os\\ .)?std(out|err)\\ ..*|.*Close" +
1515 "|.*Flush|os\\ .Remove(All)?|.*print(f|ln)?|os\\ .(Un)?Setenv). is not checked" ,
1616 Linter : "errcheck" ,
17- Why : "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok" ,
17+ Why : "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok. " ,
1818 },
1919 {
20- ID : "EXC0002" ,
20+ ID : "EXC0002" , // TODO(ldez): should be remove in v2
2121 Pattern : "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|" +
2222 "should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)" ,
2323 Linter : "golint" ,
24- Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments" ,
24+ Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments. " ,
2525 },
2626 {
27- ID : "EXC0003" ,
27+ ID : "EXC0003" , // TODO(ldez): should be remove in v2
2828 Pattern : "func name will be used as test\\ .Test.* by other packages, and that stutters; consider calling this" ,
2929 Linter : "golint" ,
30- Why : "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'" ,
30+ Why : "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'. " ,
3131 },
3232 {
3333 ID : "EXC0004" ,
3434 Pattern : "(possible misuse of unsafe.Pointer|should have signature)" ,
3535 Linter : "govet" ,
36- Why : "Common false positives" ,
36+ Why : "Common false positives. " ,
3737 },
3838 {
3939 ID : "EXC0005" ,
40- Pattern : "ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop" ,
40+ Pattern : "SA4011" , // CheckScopedBreak
4141 Linter : "staticcheck" ,
42- Why : "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore" ,
42+ Why : "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore. " ,
4343 },
4444 {
4545 ID : "EXC0006" ,
46- Pattern : "Use of unsafe calls should be audited" ,
46+ Pattern : "G103: Use of unsafe calls should be audited" ,
4747 Linter : "gosec" ,
48- Why : "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage" ,
48+ Why : "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage. " ,
4949 },
5050 {
5151 ID : "EXC0007" ,
52- Pattern : "Subprocess launch(ed with variable|ing should be audited) " ,
52+ Pattern : "G204: Subprocess launched with variable" ,
5353 Linter : "gosec" ,
54- Why : "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls" ,
54+ Why : "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls. " ,
5555 },
5656 {
5757 ID : "EXC0008" ,
58- Pattern : "( G104)" ,
58+ Pattern : "G104" , // Errors unhandled.
5959 Linter : "gosec" ,
60- Why : "Duplicated errcheck checks" ,
60+ Why : "Duplicated errcheck checks. " ,
6161 },
6262 {
6363 ID : "EXC0009" ,
64- Pattern : "(Expect directory permissions to be 0750 or less|Expect file permissions to be 0600 or less) " ,
64+ Pattern : "(G301|G302|G307): Expect ( directory permissions to be 0750| file permissions to be 0600) or less" ,
6565 Linter : "gosec" ,
66- Why : "Too many issues in popular repos" ,
66+ Why : "Too many issues in popular repos. " ,
6767 },
6868 {
6969 ID : "EXC0010" ,
70- Pattern : "Potential file inclusion via variable" ,
70+ Pattern : "G304: Potential file inclusion via variable" ,
7171 Linter : "gosec" ,
72- Why : "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'" ,
72+ Why : "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'. " ,
7373 },
7474 {
75- ID : "EXC0011" ,
76- Pattern : "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|" +
77- "should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)" ,
78- Linter : "stylecheck" ,
79- Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments" ,
75+ ID : "EXC0011" ,
76+ Pattern : "(ST1000|ST1020|ST1021|ST1022)" , // CheckPackageComment, CheckExportedFunctionDocs, CheckExportedTypeDocs, CheckExportedVarDocs
77+ Linter : "stylecheck" ,
78+ Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments." ,
8079 },
8180 {
8281 ID : "EXC0012" ,
83- Pattern : `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported` ,
82+ Pattern : `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported` , // rule: exported
8483 Linter : "revive" ,
85- Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments" ,
84+ Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments. " ,
8685 },
8786 {
8887 ID : "EXC0013" ,
89- Pattern : `package comment should be of the form "(.+)...` ,
88+ Pattern : `package comment should be of the form "(.+)..."` , // rule: package-comments
9089 Linter : "revive" ,
91- Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments" ,
90+ Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments. " ,
9291 },
9392 {
9493 ID : "EXC0014" ,
95- Pattern : `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."` ,
94+ Pattern : `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."` , // rule: exported
9695 Linter : "revive" ,
97- Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments" ,
96+ Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments. " ,
9897 },
9998 {
10099 ID : "EXC0015" ,
101- Pattern : `should have a package comment` ,
100+ Pattern : `should have a package comment` , // rule: package-comments
102101 Linter : "revive" ,
103- Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments" ,
102+ Why : "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments. " ,
104103 },
105104}
106105
0 commit comments