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

Support lint for sub-package usage #2

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

magodo
Copy link

@magodo magodo commented Feb 12, 2020

The given NOT to import package will be linted not only for itself, but also for its sub-packages. The lint message will also reflect this.

Additionally we should allow user to pass in root package path and sub package path and prefer the exact matching path if any. E.g. when pass in a=x and a/b=y, then we should lint the import path of a/b using the a/b=y suggestion (instead of a=x), this allows package author to split a mono package into several independent packages.

Another potential issue is that user might passing, e.g., a, a/b, and the code actually only import a/b/c. For now I didn't considered this case yet since I want to see whether I'm in the correct direction first, before diving into too detail.

The given NOT to import package will be linted not only for itself, but
also for its sub-packages. The lint message will also reflect this.

A potential counterpart change would be to merge the input argument and
merge them if they has root-sub relationship. Or we should allow user to
pass in two paths, e.g. *a=x* and *a/b=y*, and lint the import path of
*a/b* using the second hint (i.e. use suggestion of *y*), this allows
package author to split a mono package into several independent
packages.
@magodo magodo requested a review from fatih February 12, 2020 06:30
@@ -52,15 +52,30 @@ func run(pass *analysis.Pass) (interface{}, error) {

for _, file := range pass.Files {
for _, path := range imports {
imp := usesImport(file, path)
imp, exact := usesImport(file, path)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure about the "exact" word here. What do you think about "fullMatch" or "exactMatch" ?   Or you reverse it and return the "subMatch" (or "subPath"). Then below you could say if subMatch { ... } which I think is easier to read and reason than if !exact { ... }

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for the comment, I agree!

@fatih
Copy link
Owner

fatih commented Apr 1, 2020

This is now fixed with the change here: #14 I'm sorry that we couldn't get this in, but we had my changes so we had to implement it in a different way. I appreciate your work and let me know if you see any problems.

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

2 participants