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

docs: specify what code checks are related to staticcheck sub-linter #3215

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 13, 2022

Conversation

davidhsingyuchen
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

PR extracts the info in the description of #2017 into the reference YAML config file. I didn't create an issue first because this PR is simple, and it's just moving existing info written by a maintainer.

Why

I was migrating from staticcheck to golangci-lint, so I naturally tried to configure the checks of the staticcheck linter, and it took me some time to find #2017 to understand why it didn't work. This PR can be helpful for this kind of cases.

@boring-cyborg
Copy link

boring-cyborg bot commented Sep 13, 2022

Hey, thank you for opening your first Pull Request !

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Sep 13, 2022

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@ldez ldez changed the title Specify what checks are allowed in each staticcheck sub-linter docs: specify what code checks are related to staticcheck sub-linter Sep 13, 2022
Copy link
Member

@ldez ldez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ldez ldez enabled auto-merge (squash) September 13, 2022 07:15
@ldez ldez merged commit 5967201 into golangci:master Sep 13, 2022
@davidhsingyuchen davidhsingyuchen deleted the staticcheck-checks-docs branch September 13, 2022 20:57
SeigeC pushed a commit to SeigeC/golangci-lint that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2023
@ldez ldez added this to the v1.50 milestone Mar 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants