[go-nuts] Re: defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
Apologies for replying to an old post.
But I am sometimes a bit slow in reading my messages.
I too think that errcheck's is a bit severe in its treatment of deferred
calls to Close().
So I forked the code and changed the behaviour to be more permissive.
https://github.com/amnonbc/errcheck
Feel free to use it.
- amnon
On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 13:05:39 UTC+1, Gert wrote:
>
> To pass errcheck I need to do something like
>
> defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
>
> instead of
>
> defer resp.Body.Close()
>
> Is this something the errcheck tool can figure out to mark as valid
> instead or does the errcheck tool need help from the compiler so the second
> case is also ok?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/0bcd5c8f-6b9a-4690-80c4-5cb5f71d3427o%40googlegroups.com.
[go-nuts] Re: defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
Hi Gert,
it the -ignore flag an option for you? E.g. errcheck -ignore '[cC]lose'
$(GOPACKAGES)
Cheers!
Robert
On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 14:05:39 UTC+2, Gert wrote:
>
> To pass errcheck I need to do something like
>
> defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
>
> instead of
>
> defer resp.Body.Close()
>
> Is this something the errcheck tool can figure out to mark as valid
> instead or does the errcheck tool need help from the compiler so the second
> case is also ok?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] Re: defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
Useful additional info:
https://mijailovic.net/2017/05/09/error-handling-patterns-in-go/
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/-eo7navkp10
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:05:39 PM UTC+3, Gert wrote:
>
> To pass errcheck I need to do something like
>
> defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
>
> instead of
>
> defer resp.Body.Close()
>
> Is this something the errcheck tool can figure out to mark as valid
> instead or does the errcheck tool need help from the compiler so the second
> case is also ok?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] Re: defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
For the truly paranoid, perhaps write a helper function "EnsureClosed()" or
something like that, which will do the close, but perhaps also
appropriately log a failure to close.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:05:39 AM UTC-7, Gert wrote:
>
> To pass errcheck I need to do something like
>
> defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
>
> instead of
>
> defer resp.Body.Close()
>
> Is this something the errcheck tool can figure out to mark as valid
> instead or does the errcheck tool need help from the compiler so the second
> case is also ok?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] Re: defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
Never mind the tool is right I could print the error or something like
that, I assumed you couldn't do anything useful with the error anyway in a
defer
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:05:39 PM UTC+2, Gert wrote:
>
> To pass errcheck I need to do something like
>
> defer func() { _ = resp.Body.Close() }()
>
> instead of
>
> defer resp.Body.Close()
>
> Is this something the errcheck tool can figure out to mark as valid
> instead or does the errcheck tool need help from the compiler so the second
> case is also ok?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
