action-gh-release VS golangci-lint

While those actions are indeeded archived, they do recommend some other community actions to use. I have used https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release and it works well. That said, you need to do your own due diligence on how comfortable you are using community actions.

Create a new workflow, and then enter the code below. This code will create the PDF version of the latex file with every push into this repository. Each push will create a new release of your resume's latest iteration, and it will be an artifact attached to this. You may encounter an error based off the permission of the GitHub Action but this issue is explained well in this post.

Alternatively, if you do not want to use the LaTeX compilation process on GitHub Actions, you can omit the building process and track the locally generated PDF file as well. Usually binary files, PDF files in this case, are not tracked. You can remove the Compile LaTeX Document step in the .github/workflows/release.yml file, and start tracking the output PDF in your repository. By this way, you can move the compilation process to local. However, if you follow this path, by default, you will not have your output PDF listed under releases. It is possible to achieve this by editing the Release step in the workflow (see action-gh-release for more information).

I use https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release to create releases when pull requests happen. But I don't understand how I'm supposed to set tags. The README states this: yml if: startsWith(github.ref, 'refs/tags/')

action-gh-release really makes it easy to do these steps.

softprops/action-gh-release able to achieve that in two lines of code.

Finally, we use a 3rd-party release creation Action for creating a release draft with the release notes and artifacts we just created:

One of the checkers in golangci-lint does this. I forget which one.

golangci-lint rolls up lot of linters and checkers into a single binary.

There is a config file too.

https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint

golangci-lint is an amazing open-source tool for CI in Go projects. Basically, it's an aggregator and a Go linters runner that makes life easier for developers. It includes all the well-known liners by default but also provides an easy way to integrate new ones.

Fun fact: We actually use a code linter via golangci-linter to catch misspellings in code/comments using client9/misspell.

The "standard linter" in Go is https://golangci-lint.run/ , which includes [1] the absolutely-vital errcheck which will do that for you.

For an Advent of Code challenge you may want to turn off a lot of other things, since the linter is broadly tuned for production, public code by default and you're creating burner code and don't care whether or not you have godoc comments for your functions, for instance. But I suggest using golangci-lint rather than errcheck directly because there's some other things you may find useful, like ineffassign, exportloopref, etc.

[1]: https://golangci-lint.run/usage/linters/

golangci-lint recently integrated go-check-sumtype. I recommend using golangci-lint as a pre-commit hook, but if you're in a real hurry you can replace "go build" with a shell script that runs go-check-sumtype instead. This is probably better than a weird hack, not that you're saying that the weird hack is a good idea anyhow.

Golangci-lint is a tool for checking Go code quality, finding issues, bugs, and style problems. It helps keep the code clean and maintainable.

This is such an infuriating problem. I'm convinced I'm using Go wrong, because I simply can't understand how this doesn't make it a toy language. Why the $expletive am I wasting 20-30 and more minutes per week of my life looking for the source of an error!?

Have you seen https://github.com/tomarrell/wrapcheck? It's a linter than does a fairly good job of warning when an error originates from an external package but hasn't been wrapped in your codebase to make it unique or stacktraced. It comes with https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint and can even be made part of your in-editor LSP diagnostics.

But still, it's not perfect. And so I remain convinced that I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about the language because not being able to consistently find the source of an error is such an egregious failing for a programming language.