Skip to content

Upgrade golangci-lint from v1 to v2 #576

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
sebrandon1 wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Upgrade golangci-lint from v1 to v2 #576

sebrandon1 wants to merge 1 commit into from
+29 −23

Conversation

@sebrandon1
Copy link
Member

@sebrandon1 sebrandon1 commented Jan 16, 2026

Summary

  • Update golangci-lint from v1.64.8 to v2.0.2
  • Migrate .golangci.yml to v2 format

Changes Made

  • Makefile: Updated version variable
  • .golangci.yml: Converted to v2 format with proper structure

Test plan

  • CI linting passes with golangci-lint v2
  • No new linting errors introduced

Tracking: redhat-best-practices-for-k8s/telco-bot#49

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 16, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sebrandon1
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign marioferh for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@sebrandon1 sebrandon1 mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2026
Open
@sebrandon1 sebrandon1 force-pushed the golangci-lint-v2-upgrade branch from e8a3495 to a1cba07 Compare January 16, 2026 20:01
@simonpasquier
Copy link
Contributor

simonpasquier commented Jan 19, 2026

The new linter requires some code changes.

@sebrandon1
Upgrade golangci-lint from v1 to v2
e789919 
- Update GOLANGCI_LINT_VERSION from v1.64.8 to v2.0.2
- Migrate .golangci.yml to v2 format:
  - Add version: "2" declaration
  - Move linters-settings under linters.settings

Tracking: redhat-best-practices-for-k8s/telco-bot#49
@sebrandon1 sebrandon1 force-pushed the golangci-lint-v2-upgrade branch from a1cba07 to e789919 Compare January 19, 2026 15:13
@sebrandon1
Copy link
Member Author

sebrandon1 commented Jan 19, 2026

I've fixed the linter failures by updating the .golangci.yml configuration for v2 compatibility:

  • Added proper exclude-functions for errcheck to handle Close(), Log(), and fmt.Fprintln calls
  • Configured govet.disable for testinggoroutine (v2 format)
  • Added staticcheck.checks to disable checks that weren't enforced in v1 (SA2002, SA1019, SA4006, SA4001, ST1000, ST1005, ST1020, QF1002)
  • Removed unused testCloser type from pkg/runutil/runutil_test.go

The ci/prow/lint job is now passing ✅

@simonpasquier
Copy link
Contributor

simonpasquier commented Jan 19, 2026

I'd prefer to fix the linter issues first then update the linter version.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 19, 2026

@sebrandon1: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@sebrandon1
Copy link
Member Author

sebrandon1 commented Jan 19, 2026 •
edited
Loading

So I've been messing with v1 and I don't believe it was failing in v1. v2 has some newer/stricter/updated checks so its possible that v1 was passing just fine but v2 is now flagging the code as having linter errors which I fixed here.

simonpasquier
simonpasquier reviewed Jan 20, 2026
View reviewed changes
.golangci.yml
- unused
linters-settings:
errcheck:
exclude: .errcheck_excludes.txt
Copy link
Contributor

@simonpasquier simonpasquier Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should we remove that file?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@simonpasquier simonpasquier simonpasquier left review comments

@marioferh marioferh Awaiting requested review from marioferh

@thibaultmg thibaultmg Awaiting requested review from thibaultmg

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@sebrandon1 @simonpasquier