Clean code and fix issues reported by staticcheck #223
Conversation
Security InsightsNo security relevant content was detected by automated scans. Action Items
Questions or Comments? Reach out on Slack: #support-infosec. |
sarroutbi
force-pushed
the
202305251644_clean_code
branch
4 times, most recently
from
498236a to
e5b6f40
Compare
|
Any chance this PR could be reviewed? |
|
@sarroutbi Wondering the same about my own PR. The project seems pretty dead to me. |
|
|
||
| rt, err = mutable.Commit() | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| rt, err = Load(cfg.Persister, rt.ID(), comparator) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we require.NoError here instead of underscoring?
btree/immutable/rt_test.go
Outdated
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| expected := toOrdered(items).toItems() | ||
| result, err := mutable.(*Tr).toList(itemsToValues(expected...)...) | ||
| result, _ := mutable.(*Tr).toList(itemsToValues(expected...)...) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here:
Can we require.NoError here instead of underscoring?
btree/immutable/rt_test.go
Outdated
| mutable.AddItems(items[:25]...) | ||
| mutable.(*Tr).verify(mutable.(*Tr).Root, t) | ||
| rt, err := mutable.Commit() | ||
| rt, _ = mutable.Commit() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here as well:
Can we require.NoError here instead of underscoring?
sarroutbi
force-pushed
the
202305251644_clean_code
branch
from
e5b6f40 to
1da9ed0
Compare
Signed-off-by: Sergio Arroutbi <[email protected]>
sarroutbi
force-pushed
the
202305251644_clean_code
branch
from
1da9ed0 to
a69ce3b
Compare
|
Hello @matthinrichsen-wf . Can you please check, when possible, if this PR can be merged after your recommendations? Thanks !!! |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| outputBytes, err := Marshal(input) | ||
| outputBytes, _ := Marshal(input) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could assert on err to be complete.
| for _, key := range keys { | ||
| _, ok = hm[key] // or the compiler complains | ||
| } | ||
| for range keys { } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we sure that the compiler is not going to drop this out?
| return true | ||
| return list.apply(low, high, func(n *node) bool { | ||
| return irt.apply(n.orderedNodes, interval, dimension+1, fn) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might simplify this further by moving this out of the else which will also allow us to remove the return true below.
| return true | ||
| return list.apply(low, high, func(n *node) bool { | ||
| return ot.apply(n.orderedNodes, interval, dimension+1, fn) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As in the immutable.go file, we can simplify this further.
|
Thank you for your contribution. I will see if @matthinrichsen-wf and I can get this merged in the coming weeks. |
No description provided.