introduce static analysis #265

jkralik · 2021-12-05T09:06:31Z

No description provided.

codecov-commenter · 2021-12-05T09:10:11Z

Codecov Report

Merging #265 (0fce43f) into master (9ead1a9) will decrease coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 41.66%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #265      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.68%   63.57%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          79       79              
  Lines        5640     5655      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits         3592     3595       +3     
- Misses       1689     1697       +8     
- Partials      359      363       +4

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
examples/mcast/client/main.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
examples/observe/server/main.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
message/message.go	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
message/noresponse/noresponse.go	`94.73% <ø> (ø)`
tcp/clientconn.go	`69.40% <ø> (ø)`
udp/client/clientconn.go	`72.98% <0.00%> (ø)`
udp/client/mutexmap.go	`87.50% <ø> (ø)`
message/pool/message.go	`59.00% <13.33%> (-3.77%)`	⬇️
net/blockwise/blockwise.go	`68.72% <40.00%> (-0.28%)`	⬇️
tcp/clientobserve.go	`70.58% <100.00%> (ø)`
... and 3 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 9ead1a9...0fce43f. Read the comment docs.

JosefWN · 2021-12-10T05:25:22Z

Tip, you can manage a whole host of linters easily and efficiently using: https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint

Danielius1922 · 2021-12-16T17:03:57Z

Tip, you can manage a whole host of linters easily and efficiently using: https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint

Indeed, thanks, we have it included in the plgd-dev/hub repository. I've added there both stand-alone analysis and golangsci-lint, though I no longer recall why. (The latest released version and the version of the linter bundled in golangsci might be different? Can't remember, lets just say that I'm a linting maximalist.)

Danielius1922 · 2021-12-17T09:18:17Z

message/pool/message.go

@@ -75,6 +76,9 @@ func (r *Message) ResetOptionsTo(in message.Options) {
 		r.valueBuffer = append(r.valueBuffer, make([]byte, used)...)
 		opts, used, err = r.msg.Options.ResetOptionsTo(r.valueBuffer, in)
 	}
+	if err != nil {
+		panic(fmt.Errorf("unexpected error: %w", err))


@jkralik panicking in these setters feels wrong. But what else can we do without changing the API? If the first call r.msg.Options.ResetOptionsTo gives us correct required size for the value buffer this should never occur. But any ideas how else might we enforce it?