warg VS golangci-lint

Funcopts aren't always appropriate, but boy do they make things more readable sometimes. I use them pervasively in warg to allow declarative nested CLI commands

I wrote my own! https://github.com/bbkane/warg/

Very useful! I'll be playing with the error tree additions and studying the HTTP interface extension to see if I can replicate the pattern for https://github.com/bbkane/warg values. Id like to be able to have value-specific output for different types of --help , even ones not in warg

I'm using to allow for custom flag types in my CLI parsing library- a lot less duplicate code

One thing that I find nicer with functional options is building tree-like data structures.

My command line parsing library uses them to declaratively build CLI apps with arbitrarily nested subcommands.

Some examples at https://github.com/bbkane/warg/tree/master/examples

I'm writing a CLI parsing library, and generics have let me consolidate most of the flag value functionality for different types. So the flags for dbz --level 9000 --type superSaiyan share most of the same code even though one is an int and one is a string. So much fewer copy-paste-modify lines of code now!

This is largely what the Azure CLI does. It simplifies even further by eliminating the no-value option. Instead, you pass "true" or "false" as the value ( --example true ). It's a little more verbose but very easy to parse/write/generate. I like this convention so much I stole it for my homemade Golang CLI parsing library https://github.com/bbkane/warg/ .

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.