Change:
HasRandomFully() bool } <ins> // Protocol defines the ip protocol either ipv4 or ipv6 </ins> type Protocol byte const ( <ins> // ProtocolIpv4 represents ipv4 protocol in iptables </ins> ProtocolIpv4 Protocol = iota + 1 <ins> // ProtocolIpv6 represents ipv6 protocol in iptables </ins> ProtocolIpv6 ) <ins> // Table represents different iptable like filter,nat, mangle and raw </ins> type Table string const ( <del> TableNAT    Table = "nat" </del> <ins> // TableNAT represents the built-in nat table TableNAT Table = "nat" // TableFilter represents the built-in filter table </ins> TableFilter Table = "filter" <ins> // TableMangle represents the built-in mangle table </ins> TableMangle Table = "mangle" ) <ins> // Chain represents the different rules </ins> type Chain string const ( <ins> // ChainPostrouting used for source NAT in nat table </ins> ChainPostrouting Chain = "POSTROUTING" <del> ChainPrerouting  Chain = "PREROUTING" ChainOutput      Chain = "OUTPUT" ChainInput       Chain = "INPUT" ChainForward     Chain = "FORWARD" </del> <ins> // ChainPrerouting used for DNAT (destination NAT) in nat table ChainPrerouting Chain = "PREROUTING" // ChainOutput used for the packets going out from local ChainOutput Chain = "OUTPUT" // ChainInput used for incoming packets ChainInput Chain = "INPUT" // ChainForward used for the packets for another NIC ChainForward Chain = "FORWARD" </ins> ) const (

Discussion:
Anyone itching to understand the code and try fixing things in Kubernetes, please help fixing the lint failures Step 1: Remove one or two packages (related packages) from the list in - (note: do not change generated files, the name of defaulting functions, or the name of conversion functions... packages failing linting due to issues in those files will need to be left alone) Step 2: Run and look at the logged errors Step 3: Fix the code to ensure that runs cleanly. Step 4: Run and to make sure we fix any problems with gofmt or bazel. Step 5: File a PR with the change Step 6: Go to step :) Please use the tracking spreadsheet For everyone who is going to contribute, please append the packages you picked at the end. For existing contributor, please make sure this list is update to date
/sig architecture /sig testing
Hey, I would like to resolve this issue. Could you assign it to me ?
there are a lot of packages so there will be many people working on this. Also we cannot assign issue to folks who are not in the github org for kubernetes. please feel free to pick up a few packages like i mentioned and file a PR. Make sure you link back to this issue, so folks can see which packages you filed PR for.
OK. I see. I will firstly pick up the package called to fix.
Hi dims. Should i submit my PR before i remove one or two packages (related packages) from the list in - Or I first remove the package from list, then I fix the issue and submit a PR?
in your PR, you will have both the fixes to packages and some lines removed from /.golint_failures
When I run , I found some errors as below: I found that there is a go file in But there is still a error.
Say your GOPATH looks like this Your kubernetes directory should be () cd to and then run from that directory.
Is it necessary to obey all rules in golint? Rules in golint are set in stone. Maybe using gometalinter to ignore some specific errors is better?
I revise some erros about golint in some packages. Please review it.
which errors would you like to ignore?

if you can open a new issue with the list of errors to ignore (and proposing gometalinter), we can get some opinions there from others in the community.
Let me take the kubectl cmd part...
Can someone please review and let me know if I am doing it right?
I ll work on all the packages related to
we get 800-ish pkgs left to fix. my concern is that if we fix them package by package, then such pulls will be flooding the repo. can't we possibly make it in larger pulls? the larger the better?
+1 to slightly larger pulls with related packages. if allow too large then the reviewers will not be able to do a thorough review. we should spread the load among multiple reviewers. (if we allow a really large pull, we will end up with top level reviewers who will face the burden and the PR(s) will just stagnate)
oh good point. we could put one pkg's change into one commit, and merge all changes under one area into one pull so that it wont spread the load. wdyt? for each pull, we can have hundred-ish lines of change. but it will still be 30~50 pulls i guess? good news is that we can take our time to deal with it, at least before 1.12
sounds great! please feel free to help make it happen :) (by suggesting groups of packages that kinda go together)
I'm looking at fixing pkg/proxy, and I think I see what was talking about ignoring some rules. proxy.ProxyProvider is being suggested because golint is saying that it stutters. In that example, I think it's okay renaming it to proxy.Provider, but I could see an example where you would want to keep the stutter if the package that it's declared in uses it heavily.
sure thing, feel free to propose a PR for switching to gometalinter independently of other patches. We can work through that there.
I sent the pull request to fix pkg/volume/aws_ebs
I've fixed a few of these, but get the following error when I try to run : Are there any instructions on what I need to setup in order to resolve this?

you can find this file in
I have raised a PR to fix golint errors in pkg/api
I have fixed some pkgs under /pkg/kubelet pkg/kubelet/images pkg/kubelet/kuberuntime pkg/kubelet/leaky pkg/kubelet/pleg
I submitted a pull request for golint errors in pkg/security/ edit: I can work on picking up pkg/controller/bootstrap through pkg/controller/namespace/... (114-129)
fix golint errors in package cmd/kubeadm/app, since the codes under cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/v1alpha2 and cmd/kubeadm/app/apis/kubeadm/v1alpha3 are auto-generated, i keep them untouched.
I am working on some packages under pkg/kubelet, anyone interested in this plz leave messages for me :)
fix golint for pkg/util/dbus pkg/util/labels pkg/util/node pkg/util/strings pkg/util/workqueue/prometheus
PR fixes golint errors in pkg/routes,pkg/securitycontext, pkg/serviceaccount
PR fixes golint in pkg/probe
should we have a checklist as part of the issue summary saying what is in progress and what is done? Since this issue is getting long, this will make new contributors to pick up issues easier.
Great idea!, want to throw a google doc with a check-list so it's easy for participants to organize themselves? (please!) If it is the issue summary then one of us with privileges will be a bottle neck.
Created a with all the package that have on going PRs. Maybe you can add this to the summary. For everyone who is going to contribute, please append the packages you picked at the end. For existing contributor, please make sure this list is update to date
Thanks updated the spread sheet
Raised PR to fix golint issues in: pkg/controller/clusterroleaggregation pkg/controller/cronjob pkg/controller/daemon pkg/controller/deployment pkg/controller/deployment/util pkg/controller/disruption pkg/controller/endpoint
This issue is close in accident by . could you reopen it?
/reopen
Reopening this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
I found a problem trying to fix golint messages for .

Golint complaints on 's function because of the snake case. When I try to fix it, fails because it is being used in a code generated file. If I clean generated files, tests pass, but the generated file is not invoking it anymore. I failed to find the generator definition using this so I could change the hook to just . Also I'm not sure if this is wanted. I also found other packages in also probably affected by this. I read somewhere about replacing golint with gometalinter, which would allow to define directives in code to omit certain rules. I would consider to have a second exclusion file for golint with these cases, to be updated if move to gometalinter is finally done. This would make this issue completion more feasible. Meanwhile, I'll move onto fixing golint messages for other packages, until this discussion gets cleared.
I also found a problem fixing . A test fails because the directory is marked as readonly (see tests @ Shall we also ignore this directory for this issue?
Is this issue still relevant because hack/verify- is giving me no errors.
the failures are still present in there are details in the first message on how to claim + solve issues :)
Sorry I misunderstood the issue
I'm working on this package:
pkg/apis/admission/v1beta1 pkg/apis/authentication/v1beta1 pkg/apis/authorization/v1beta1 pkg/apis/coordination/v1 pkg/apis/coordination/v1beta1 pkg/apis/imagepolicy/v1alpha1 pkg/apis/scheduling/v1alpha1 pkg/apis/scheduling/v1beta1 pkg/apis/settings/v1alpha1 pkg/apis/storage/v1alpha1
pkg/cloudprovider/providers/vsphere/vclib pkg/kubelet/apis/deviceplugin/v1alpha pkg/kubelet/apis/pluginregistration/v1alpha1 pkg/kubelet/apis/pluginregistration/v1beta1
:
I'm looking at the pkg/registry/*, all those which are left. I expect to give an update on what all is fixed in the next 24-48 hours.
hi there is a google sheet that is a bit outdated, maybe you can update that?
hi I seem to only have view access for the sheet. Can't edit.
I fixed the permission.

Please try it again
pkg/apis/authentication pkg/apis/coordination pkg/apis/events pkg/apis/imagepolicy pkg/apis/settings
hi I think this issue was closed prematurely by (using fixes #issue in commit)
I'll put in a PR shortly for the package
Looking at next
hi thanks! there is a spreadsheet here that tracks the progress on fixing these issues, consider adding the packages you're work on there so we can keep everything organized :+1:
Starting on now
I did indeed see the Google Sheet link (thank you and to take it a little further
test/e2e
test/e2e_node/builder
pkg/registry/admissionregistration/mutatingwebhookconfiguration/storage pkg/registry/admissionregistration/rest pkg/registry/admissionregistration/validatingwebhookconfiguration/storage pkg/registry/apps/daemonset/storage
Hi. I opened a PR - Please review.
Working on Will open a PR soon.
Starting on and should have a PR soon
I keep getting this golint verify error on and was wondering if others saw it: But when I that package to the golint failures in my PR, my reviewer said it isn't necessary? What does that mean? What did I miss? Should I use a different kind of verify? cf:
looks like the disconnect is because that problem does not show up in the version of we use in the CI. please see
Still confused: is that not the golint version I ran? it installs from vendor and uses that I think?
i installed from and i still don't see the problem, can you please check what version of golint you have?
I'm confused why I wouldn't be using the vendored version? how would that get out of sync?
/me looking
Note: I am reserving for a KubeCon Contributor Workshop demonstration. It is noted in the spreadsheet.
I think may not be ideal cause there's a lot of auto generated files there. What do you think about reserving instead for the KubeCON Contributor Workshop?
pkg/apis/scheduling pkg/apis/storage/util pkg/apis/storage/v1beta1/util pkg/apis/storage/v1/util
/priority backlog
Hi I am a new contributor here, I'd like to contribute and make changes to the following file/s. I have marked it as WIP in the Google Sheet. Can someone let me know if I have to do anything else before I start working on this PR?

Umm so there's an issue where Golint tells that underscore shouldn't be allowed. Here's a log of the go-lint warnings:
Thanks The following should not be modified, as they are designed like this for code generation.
I'd like to pick a package and do my first PR, is there a list of packages to be done? Or should I correlate with this issue thread? Thanks in advance!
please see step 1 () please scan other PRs linked to this issue as well just in case.
Will do. Thank you. On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 7:25 AM Davanum Srinivas <:
Hi there, I'm looking for a good first issue. I'll start taking a look at if that's ok? There doesn't seem to be anyone currently tracked as looking at it in the attached spreadsheet.
I've found a few others I'm actively looking at, you won't get any argument from me. On Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 10:38 AM Pamela Kelly <:
I am working on the iptables pkg. Updated in the google docs
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
I have problem running in step 2 $ hack/verify- what should I do?
PTAL for my pr to this issue, thx
you can move kubernetes directory to and re-run this script.
I'd like to take Can we fix linter issues for generated files? Or we should skip packages with zz_generated?
There're 2 lint errors that affects 292/507 packages, meaning it's not possible to cleanup the entire file without solving it: default pattern of Kubectl is the usage of [cmd]Options for initial options structs and it raises: /apis/{custommetrics,externalmetrics} for example raises the underscore error, but It's probably not worth to break backward compatibility renaming these folder for lint error fix: Any advice on these?

/reopen hm, cannot reopen this issue, it was closed by mistake
You can't reopen an issue/PR unless you authored it or you are a collaborator. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
I am sure this is all not fixed. Am I missing something? ./hack/verify- installing golint from vendor Congratulations! All Go source files have been linted.
you need to remove package from first.
/remove-sig testing SIG testing doesn't own code failing lints, we own the linter. :upsidedownface:
Hello, is this still a relevent issue ? I would like to work upon
I have fixed
Hi Folks, Some of the golint fixes, require us to change the exposed function's name, in simple words, "change API". I was not sure, if that is welcomed and what is the process.
Heres what Im getting after going over the following steps as mentioned by Say your GOPATH looks like this GOPATH=/Users/dims/go Your kubernetes directory should be ($) cd to and then run hack/verify- from that directory. I get the following output - installing golint Congratulations! All Go source files have been linted. Im not really sure what I am doing wrong. Any help is appreciated!
I think I understand. I misunderstood the steps around .golint_failures. The first step is to remove the pkg that we are targeting from this file and then run the My mistake was to assume that the packages in the file need to be removed after we are done cleaning the golint errors.
Can someone please review and let me know if I've done this right?
After a couple years of seeing changes spawned from this issue, I don't think this is a good use of contributors' or reviewers' time.

golint is very opinionated about: exported type and function names, leading to PRs attempting to change exported things people use downstream missing documentation on interface implementation functions, which leads to not-very-useful copy/paste of interface godoc the govet and staticcheck verify jobs are much more useful since they catch correctness issues, but I would recommend closing this issue and dropping the golint checks from CI golint doc itself discourages from using its output in an automated enforced way: from
i guess one can say gofmt is opinionated too, but something good about Golang is that it comes with an opinion and a set of standard tools. for API documentation at least we found inconsistencies on how most exported API items are documented: golint can help with that, but if there are no "pragmas" to avoid breaking changes and given we have codegen generating non-compliant names enabling golint on API packages is sort of blocked in Kubernetes. for non-API, non-library, non-public code, i think being inconsistent is mostly OK. no preference on my side. shrug
true, but code formatting has the benefits of mostly eliminating meaningless diffs in PRs due to code movement/whitespace/etc if there are specific packages (like API packages) we lack documentation on, adding checks specifically for that could make sense exactly, I don't think golint is the right tool for making sure we have API docs
golint itself doesn't have these and the go project is against this sort of comment AIUI, however golangci-lint does have them. I think there are plenty of other static analysis lints we should use instead, beyond just staticcheck and vet there is e.g.
btw, if we remove golint can we see e.g. all-caps constants or functions with underscores dodging review? perhaps we should add golangci-lint soon after:
Completely agree there are better places to spend review bandwidth. I was curious to see what the effort looked like. There have been 890 commits that touched over the past 3+ years !
/remove-help /remove-good-first-issue
Overall agree on the bandwidth. Also note that it was a good first issue with very low bar to get them in the repo. May be we need to find a similar low bar, but high value good first issue.

UT's come to mind, are there other things we curate for new contributors ?
Do we have an alternative way of enforcing that new exported code (not necessarily API fields) has at least some minimum documentation? As a reviewer, I ask contributors to add meaningful comments. But reality is that I sometimes stumble into old code that doesn't have documentation because we didn't have golint at some point. I agree that fix-golint PRs just add burden to reviewers. But, before removing the lint check, can we wait and see if it's enough to discourage people from sending more PRs like this? Additionally, we can encourage reviewers to just close PRs that only fix golint issues.
+1 for adding burden to reviewers. However, as a new contributor, I think this a very good opportunity for new contributors to study the code base and submit their first PR. In my opinion, I think this issue would be able to attract more new contributors, get familiar with the code base, and get familiar with the git workflow.
thanks everyone for getting us this far. We essentially gave up on the existing structure/system for golint: At some point we can look at adding golangci-lint, there's a WIP in progress in /close
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : thanks everyone for getting us this far. We essentially gave up on the existing structure/system for golint: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details