logcheck: do not error out if no Go files present

[umangachapagain]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Exit with code 0 when the provided package has no Go files
and code 1 for all other errors.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #214

Special notes for your reviewer:

Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.

Release note:

None.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @umangachapagain!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/klog 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/klog has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: umangachapagain
To complete the pull request process, please assign brancz after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @brancz in a comment when ready.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[umangachapagain]

/cc @dims @nikhita

[dims]

/assign @adisky

[adisky]

I think the error is coming from singlechecker.Main(Analyzer) and it is exiting with exit code 1 while package loading. singlechecker.Main(Analyzer) would be called anyways after handleErrors(), so it will fail?

[umangachapagain]

handleErrors() will exit with code 0 for no Go files error and code 1 for all other errors. So singlechecker.Main(Analyzer) will never be called if there is an error while loading package.

I don't like this approach because we're duplicating what checker does. But, in current state that looks like the only way to me. We can discuss on other alternatives.

[adisky]

I see, it might slow down the tool

[umangachapagain]

Yeah but it's either that or we error out from the checker.

[adisky]

The error is coming from singlechecker.Main(Analyzer)and it is exiting with os.Exit(1) while package loading without returning the error, We cannot handle the error as it is not returned. This way (this PR) It will reload packages two times and I think it might slow down the linter.

klog/hack/tools/logcheck/main.go

Lines 37 to 39 in 407242c

	func main() {
	singlechecker.Main(Analyzer)
	}

cc @ehashman @serathius @navidshaikh do you have any suggestions here? or we should mark it as won't fix.

references for singlechecker package.
[1] https://github.com/golang/tools/blob/v0.1.0/go/analysis/singlechecker/singlechecker.go#L76
[2] https://github.com/golang/tools/blob/v0.1.0/go/analysis/internal/checker/checker.go#L130-L133

[umangachapagain]

The error is coming from singlechecker.Main(Analyzer)and it is exiting with os.Exit(1) while package loading without returning the error, We cannot handle the error as it is not returned. This way (this PR) It will reload packages two times and I think it might slow down the linter.

klog/hack/tools/logcheck/main.go

Lines 37 to 39 in 407242c

	func main() {
	singlechecker.Main(Analyzer)
	}

cc @ehashman @serathius @navidshaikh do you have any suggestions here? or we should mark it as won't fix.

references for singlechecker package.
[1] https://github.com/golang/tools/blob/v0.1.0/go/analysis/singlechecker/singlechecker.go#L76
[2] https://github.com/golang/tools/blob/v0.1.0/go/analysis/internal/checker/checker.go#L130-L133

We should probably mark it as won't fix.
While looking into this error, somewhere in the code comments I read that packages without Go files are not allowed and even go vet would return an error (code 1) if you pass such packages.

[ehashman]

/retitle logcheck: do not error out if no Go files present

While looking into this error, somewhere in the code comments I read that packages without Go files are not allowed and even go vet would return an error (code 1) if you pass such packages.

The issue I filed doesn't suggest we try to load empty packages. I asked to ensure that we don't fail when we try to test an empty package, because an empty package can't possibly require a log migration. This is especially important for when we reverse the CI script's logic to fail any directory that isn't an explicitly allowed failure. We will have much less control over input at that point.

I suspect the best way to accomplish this may be to always return true if given a path that contains no Go files before starting the rest of the program logic. This would constitute input validation and is not the way the PR is currently written.

[umangachapagain]

The issue I filed doesn't suggest we try to load empty packages. I asked to ensure that we don't fail when we try to test an empty package, because an empty package can't possibly require a log migration. This is especially important for when we reverse the CI script's logic to fail any directory that isn't an explicitly allowed failure. We will have much less control over input at that point.

I understand the issue doesn't suggest that we try to load empty packages. But, I don't know a way to find an empty package without trying to load it.

I suspect the best way to accomplish this may be to always return true if given a path that contains no Go files before starting the rest of the program logic. This would constitute input validation and is not the way the PR is currently written.

I have some questions. But, before I ask those I'd like to know your view on how we do this?

[k8s-ci-robot]

@umangachapagain: PR needs rebase.

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/test-infra repository.

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue or PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Mark this issue or PR as rotten with /lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue or PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[umangachapagain]

/close

[k8s-ci-robot]

@umangachapagain: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

/close

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/test-infra repository.