Added staticcheck for basic static code analysis
#44
Conversation
Enabling comment style checks
| @@ -67,14 +67,14 @@ func start() error { | |||
| return showToken() | |||
| } else { | |||
| flag.Usage() | |||
| return fmt.Errorf("None of the required flags are present. What do you want me to do?") | |||
| return fmt.Errorf("none of the required flags are present. What do you want me to do?") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we consider this a non-breaking change? personally I fully agree with correcting this style but this will break user tests that perform assertions against the explicit error values. Considering this goes for v4, we can consider it a non-issue but I would think twice if we ever need to backport to v3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since it is in the actual jwt application, I would say that this is ok. For the other error changes I would assume that people are trying to compare against the error variables and not the content. But anyway, yes, I would keep this for v4 only, which promises compatibility but considering it to be a major version bump, I would argue this has enough leeway to fix issues like this.
Additionally, added `staticcheck` for basic static code analysis (#44) Co-authored-by: Christian Banse <[email protected]>
I am basing this off the
v4branch because getting this to work without Go modules is a pain.Addressed all the issues that static check discovered. Also deprecated several functions that were just used internally.