mirror of https://go.googlesource.com/go
eef288da1e
This change modifies the commands in cmd to open counter files, increment invocations counters and to increment counters for the names of the flags that were passed in. cmd/pprof and cmd/vet are both wrappers around tools defined in other modules which do their own flag processing so we can't directly increment flag counters right after flags are parsed. For those two commands we wait to increment counters until after the programs have returned. cmd/dist is built with the bootstrap go so it can't depend on telemetry yet. We can add telemetry support to it once 1.23 is the minimum bootstrap version. For #58894 Change-Id: Ic7f6009992465e55c56ad4dc6451bcb1ca51374a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/585235 Reviewed-by: Sam Thanawalla <samthanawalla@google.com> Reviewed-by: Cherry Mui <cherryyz@google.com> LUCI-TryBot-Result: Go LUCI <golang-scoped@luci-project-accounts.iam.gserviceaccount.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| testdata | ||
| README | ||
| doc.go | ||
| main.go | ||
| vet_test.go | ||
README
Vet is a tool that checks correctness of Go programs. It runs a suite of tests, each tailored to check for a particular class of errors. Examples include incorrect Printf format verbs and malformed build tags. Over time many checks have been added to vet's suite, but many more have been rejected as not appropriate for the tool. The criteria applied when selecting which checks to add are: Correctness: Vet's checks are about correctness, not style. A vet check must identify real or potential bugs that could cause incorrect compilation or execution. A check that only identifies stylistic points or alternative correct approaches to a situation is not acceptable. Frequency: Vet is run every day by many programmers, often as part of every compilation or submission. The cost in execution time is considerable, especially in aggregate, so checks must be likely enough to find real problems that they are worth the overhead of the added check. A new check that finds only a handful of problems across all existing programs, even if the problem is significant, is not worth adding to the suite everyone runs daily. Precision: Most of vet's checks are heuristic and can generate both false positives (flagging correct programs) and false negatives (not flagging incorrect ones). The rate of both these failures must be very small. A check that is too noisy will be ignored by the programmer overwhelmed by the output; a check that misses too many of the cases it's looking for will give a false sense of security. Neither is acceptable. A vet check must be accurate enough that everything it reports is worth examining, and complete enough to encourage real confidence.