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

Fixes go vet errors: #323

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 13, 2015
Merged

Fixes go vet errors: #323

merged 1 commit into from Jan 13, 2015

Conversation

robdaemon
Copy link

Since I've built off a go vet installed today, I get the following errors:

cf/actors/broker_builder/broker_builder_test.go:92:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/broker_builder/broker_builder_test.go:124:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:49:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:219:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:246:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:274:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:299:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:322:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/commands/service/create_service_test.go:56: models.ServiceOfferings
composite literal uses unkeyed fields

This uses a longer syntax to instantiate models.ServiceOfferings types, but gives go vet enough detail to not complain.

cf/actors/broker_builder/broker_builder_test.go:92:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/broker_builder/broker_builder_test.go:124:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:49:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:219:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:246:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:274:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:299:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/actors/service_builder/service_builder_test.go:322:
models.ServiceOfferings composite literal uses unkeyed fields
cf/commands/service/create_service_test.go:56: models.ServiceOfferings
composite literal uses unkeyed fields
@cfdreddbot
Copy link

Hey robdaemon!

Thanks for submitting this pull request!

All pull request authors must have a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on-file with us. Please sign the appropriate CLA (individual or corporate).

When sending signed CLA please provide your github username in case of individual CLA or the list of github usernames that can make pull requests on behalf of your organization.

@cf-gitbot
Copy link

We have created an issue in Pivotal Tracker to manage this. You can view the current status of your issue at: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/85571370.

@jbayer
Copy link

jbayer commented Jan 10, 2015

@goehmen i can confirm that we have received a signed Cloud Foundry Foundation CLA from @robdaemon

@goehmen
Copy link
Contributor

goehmen commented Jan 12, 2015

Thanks James.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:31 AM, James Bayer notifications@github.com
wrote:

@goehmen https://github.com/goehmen i can confirm that we have received
a signed Cloud Foundry Foundation CLA from @robdaemon
https://github.com/robdaemon


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#323 (comment).

simonleung8 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2015
@simonleung8 simonleung8 merged commit 22a9446 into cloudfoundry:master Jan 13, 2015
@simonleung8
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good to us. Merging!

@robdaemon robdaemon deleted the go_vet_fixes branch January 13, 2015 02:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants