-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 213
Enable govet #603
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
Enable govet #603
Conversation
|
/hold cancel |
|
/assign @LalatenduMohanty |
|
/retest |
Signed-off-by: Arjun Naik <[email protected]>
LalatenduMohanty
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
|
/retest |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arjunrn, LalatenduMohanty The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
1 similar comment
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
Depends on #598
According to the documentation:
Results from the linter:
The code uses unkeyed composite literals and in the words of Rob Pike:
There are also some instances where structs containing locks are passed by value. This is incorrect because when passing locks by value the lock is copied and effectively there are multiple locks.