dev: clean DefaultExcludePatterns and improve CLI render (#4638)

pkg/commands/flagsets.go

@@ -120,13 +120,14 @@ func setupIssuesFlagSet(v *viper.Viper, fs *pflag.FlagSet) {
 
 func getDefaultIssueExcludeHelp() string {
  parts := []string{color.GreenString("Use or not use default excludes:")}
+
  for _, ep := range config.DefaultExcludePatterns {
  parts = append(parts,
- fmt.Sprintf(" # %s %s: %s", ep.ID, ep.Linter, ep.Why),
- fmt.Sprintf(" - %s", color.YellowString(ep.Pattern)),
- "",
+ fmt.Sprintf(" - %s (%s): %s", color.BlueString(ep.ID), color.CyanString(ep.Linter), ep.Why),
+ fmt.Sprintf(` Pattern: %s`, color.YellowString(`'`+ep.Pattern+`'`)),
  )
  }
+
  return strings.Join(parts, "\n")
 }
 

pkg/config/issues.go

@@ -14,93 +14,92 @@ var DefaultExcludePatterns = []ExcludePattern{
  Pattern: "Error return value of .((os\\.)?std(out|err)\\..*|.*Close" +
  "|.*Flush|os\\.Remove(All)?|.*print(f|ln)?|os\\.(Un)?Setenv). is not checked",
  Linter: "errcheck",
- Why: "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok",
+ Why: "Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok.",
  },
  {
- ID: "EXC0002",
+ ID: "EXC0002", // TODO(ldez): should be remove in v2
  Pattern: "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|" +
  "should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)",
  Linter: "golint",
- Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
+ Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
  },
  {
- ID: "EXC0003",
+ ID: "EXC0003", // TODO(ldez): should be remove in v2
  Pattern: "func name will be used as test\\.Test.* by other packages, and that stutters; consider calling this",
  Linter: "golint",
- Why: "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'",
+ Why: "False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0004",
  Pattern: "(possible misuse of unsafe.Pointer|should have signature)",
  Linter: "govet",
- Why: "Common false positives",
+ Why: "Common false positives.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0005",
- Pattern: "ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop",
+ Pattern: "SA4011", // CheckScopedBreak
  Linter: "staticcheck",
- Why: "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore",
+ Why: "Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0006",
- Pattern: "Use of unsafe calls should be audited",
+ Pattern: "G103: Use of unsafe calls should be audited",
  Linter: "gosec",
- Why: "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage",
+ Why: "Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0007",
- Pattern: "Subprocess launch(ed with variable|ing should be audited)",
+ Pattern: "G204: Subprocess launched with variable",
  Linter: "gosec",
- Why: "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls",
+ Why: "Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0008",
- Pattern: "(G104)",
+ Pattern: "G104", // Errors unhandled.
  Linter: "gosec",
- Why: "Duplicated errcheck checks",
+ Why: "Duplicated errcheck checks.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0009",
- Pattern: "(Expect directory permissions to be 0750 or less|Expect file permissions to be 0600 or less)",
+ Pattern: "(G301|G302|G307): Expect (directory permissions to be 0750|file permissions to be 0600) or less",
  Linter: "gosec",
- Why: "Too many issues in popular repos",
+ Why: "Too many issues in popular repos.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0010",
- Pattern: "Potential file inclusion via variable",
+ Pattern: "G304: Potential file inclusion via variable",
  Linter: "gosec",
- Why: "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'",
+ Why: "False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'.",
  },
  {
- ID: "EXC0011",
- Pattern: "(comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|" +
- "should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)",
- Linter: "stylecheck",
- Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
+ ID: "EXC0011",
+ Pattern: "(ST1000|ST1020|ST1021|ST1022)", // CheckPackageComment, CheckExportedFunctionDocs, CheckExportedTypeDocs, CheckExportedVarDocs
+ Linter: "stylecheck",
+ Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0012",
- Pattern: `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported`,
+ Pattern: `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported`, // rule: exported
  Linter: "revive",
- Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
+ Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0013",
- Pattern: `package comment should be of the form "(.+)...`,
+ Pattern: `package comment should be of the form "(.+)..."`, // rule: package-comments
  Linter: "revive",
- Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
+ Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0014",
- Pattern: `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."`,
+ Pattern: `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."`, // rule: exported
  Linter: "revive",
- Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
+ Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
  },
  {
  ID: "EXC0015",
- Pattern: `should have a package comment`,
+ Pattern: `should have a package comment`, // rule: package-comments
  Linter: "revive",
- Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments",
+ Why: "Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.",
  },
 }