golangci-lint

False Positives

False positives are inevitable, but we did our best to reduce their count. For example, we have a default enabled set of exclude patterns.

If a false positive occurred, you have the several choices.

Specific Linter Excludes

Most of the linters has a configuration, sometimes false-positives can be related to a bad configuration of a linter. So it's recommended to check the linters configuration.

Otherwise, some linters have dedicated configuration to exclude or disable rules.

An example with staticcheck:

linters-settings:
staticcheck:
checks:
- all
- '-SA1000' # disable the rule SA1000
- '-SA1004' # disable the rule SA1004

Exclude or Skip

Exclude Issue by Text

Exclude issue by text using command-line option -e or config option issues.exclude. It's helpful when you decided to ignore all issues of this type. Also, you can use issues.exclude-rules config option for per-path or per-linter configuration.

In the following example, all the reports that contains the sentences defined in exclude are excluded:

issues:
exclude:
- "Error return value of .((os\\.)?std(out|err)\\..*|.*Close|.*Flush|os\\.Remove(All)?|.*printf?|os\\.(Un)?Setenv). is not checked"
- "exported (type|method|function) (.+) should have comment or be unexported"
- "ST1000: at least one file in a package should have a package comment"

In the following example, all the reports from the linters (linters) that contains the text (text) are excluded:

issues:
exclude-rules:
- linters:
- gomnd
text: "mnd: Magic number: 9"

In the following example, all the reports that contains the text (text) in the path (path) are excluded:

issues:
exclude-rules:
- path: path/to/a/file.go
text: "string `example` has (\\d+) occurrences, make it a constant"

Exclude Issues by Path

Exclude issues in path by run.skip-dirs, run.skip-files or issues.exclude-rules config options.

In the following example, all the reports from the linters (linters) that concerns the path (path) are excluded:

issues:
exclude-rules:
- path: '(.+)_test\.go'
linters:
- funlen
- goconst

In the following example, all the reports related to the files (skip-files) are excluded:

run:
skip-files:
- path/to/a/file.go

In the following example, all the reports related to the directories (skip-dirs) are excluded:

run:
skip-dirs:
- path/to/a/dir/

Nolint Directive

To exclude issues from all linters use //nolint:all. For example, if it's used inline (not from the beginning of the line) it excludes issues only for this line.

var bad_name int //nolint:all

To exclude issues from specific linters only:

var bad_name int //nolint:golint,unused

To exclude issues for the block of code use this directive on the beginning of a line:

//nolint:all
func allIssuesInThisFunctionAreExcluded() *string {
// ...
}
//nolint:govet
var (
a int
b int
)

Also, you can exclude all issues in a file by:

//nolint:unparam
package pkg

You may add a comment explaining or justifying why //nolint is being used on the same line as the flag itself:

//nolint:gocyclo // This legacy function is complex but the team too busy to simplify it
func someLegacyFunction() *string {
// ...
}

You can see more examples of using //nolint in our tests for it.

Use //nolint instead of // nolint because machine-readable comments should have no space by Go convention.

Default Exclusions

Some exclusions are considered as common, to help golangci-lint users those common exclusions are used as default exclusions.

If you don't want to use it you can set issues.exclude-use-default to false.

EXC0001

  • linter: errcheck
  • pattern: Error return value of .((os\.)?std(out|err)\..*|.*Close|.*Flush|os\.Remove(All)?|.*print(f|ln)?|os\.(Un)?Setenv). is not checked
  • why: Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok

EXC0002

  • linter: golint
  • pattern: (comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)
  • why: Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments

EXC0003

  • linter: golint
  • pattern: func name will be used as test\.Test.* by other packages, and that stutters; consider calling this
  • why: False positive when tests are defined in package 'test'

EXC0004

  • linter: govet
  • pattern: (possible misuse of unsafe.Pointer|should have signature)
  • why: Common false positives

EXC0005

  • linter: staticcheck
  • pattern: ineffective break statement. Did you mean to break out of the outer loop
  • why: Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore

EXC0006

  • linter: gosec
  • pattern: Use of unsafe calls should be audited
  • why: Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage

EXC0007

  • linter: gosec
  • pattern: Subprocess launch(ed with variable|ing should be audited)
  • why: Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls

EXC0008

  • linter: gosec
  • pattern: (G104|G307)
  • why: Duplicated errcheck checks

EXC0009

  • linter: gosec
  • pattern: (Expect directory permissions to be 0750 or less|Expect file permissions to be 0600 or less)
  • why: Too many issues in popular repos

EXC0010

  • linter: gosec
  • pattern: Potential file inclusion via variable
  • why: False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'

EXC0011

  • linter: stylecheck
  • pattern: (comment on exported (method|function|type|const)|should have( a package)? comment|comment should be of the form)
  • why: Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments

EXC0012

  • linter: revive
  • pattern: exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported
  • why: Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments

EXC0013

  • linter: revive
  • pattern: package comment should be of the form "(.+)...
  • why: Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments

EXC0014

  • linter: revive
  • pattern: comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."
  • why: Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments

EXC0015

  • linter: revive
  • pattern: should have a package comment
  • why: Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments
Edit this page on GitHub