Skip to content

chore: explicitly allow linting errors from package-comments #1720

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator

@G-Rath G-Rath commented Mar 18, 2025

By default golangci-lint ignores output from package-comments unless you explicitly allow it, even if you're already explicitly enabling the underlying rule, as they consider it too noisy for most codebases

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 18, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 64.58%. Comparing base (0e986b4) to head (b69082f).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1720   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   64.58%   64.58%           
=======================================
  Files         157      157           
  Lines       15839    15839           
=======================================
  Hits        10229    10229           
  Misses       4932     4932           
  Partials      678      678           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@cuixq
Copy link
Contributor

cuixq commented Apr 2, 2025

I think the linter is doing its work - we need to add comments to these packages.

@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator Author

G-Rath commented Apr 3, 2025

@cuixq yup that's the next step - I'm going to be working on that in the background, but its currently a low priority

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2025

This pull request has not had any activity for 60 days and will be automatically closed in two weeks

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale The issue or PR is stale and pending automated closure label Jun 2, 2025
@G-Rath
Copy link
Collaborator Author

G-Rath commented Jun 2, 2025

not stale, just have not gotten around to it yet 😅

@G-Rath G-Rath added backlog Important but currently unprioritized and removed stale The issue or PR is stale and pending automated closure labels Jun 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backlog Important but currently unprioritized
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants