refactor: new exclusion rules

Author: ldez

pkg/config/issues.go

@@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ type BaseRule struct {
 	PathExcept string `mapstructure:"path-except"`
 	Text       string
 	Source     string
+
+	// For compatibility with exclude-use-default/include.
+	InternalReference string `mapstructure:"-"`
 }
 
 func (b *BaseRule) Validate(minConditionsCount int) error {

pkg/lint/runner.go

@@ -97,7 +97,8 @@ func NewRunner(log logutils.Log, cfg *config.Config, args []string, goenv *gouti
 			processors.NewIdentifierMarker(),
 
 			processors.NewExclude(&cfg.Issues),
-			processors.NewExcludeRules(log.Child(logutils.DebugKeyExcludeRules), files, &cfg.Issues),
+			processors.NewExclusionRules(log.Child(logutils.DebugKeyExclusionRules), files,
+				&cfg.Linters.LinterExclusions, cfg.Issues.IncludeDefaultExcludes, cfg.Issues.ExcludeCaseSensitive),
 
 			processors.NewNolintFilter(log.Child(logutils.DebugKeyNolintFilter), dbManager, enabledLinters),
 

pkg/logutils/logutils.go

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ const (
 
 // Processors.
 const (
-	DebugKeyExcludeRules        = "exclude_rules"
+	DebugKeyExclusionRules      = "exclusion_rules"
 	DebugKeyFilenameUnadjuster  = "filename_unadjuster"
 	DebugKeyGeneratedFileFilter = "generated_file_filter" // Debugs a filter excluding autogenerated source code.
 	DebugKeyInvalidIssue        = "invalid_issue"

pkg/result/processors/base_rule.go

@@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ type baseRule struct {
 	path       *regexp.Regexp
 	pathExcept *regexp.Regexp
 	linters    []string
+
+	// For compatibility with exclude-use-default/include.
+	internalReference string `mapstructure:"-"`
 }
 
 func (r *baseRule) isEmpty() bool {

pkg/result/processors/exclude_rules.go

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+package processors
+
+import "github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/pkg/config"
+
+var defaultLintersExclusions = map[string][]config.ExcludeRule{
+	"comments": {
+		{
+			// Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.
+			// CheckPackageComment, CheckExportedFunctionDocs, CheckExportedTypeDocs, CheckExportedVarDocs
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "(ST1000|ST1020|ST1021|ST1022)",
+				Linters:           []string{"stylecheck"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0011",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.
+			// rule: exported
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              `exported (.+) should have comment( \(or a comment on this block\))? or be unexported`,
+				Linters:           []string{"revive"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0012",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.
+			// rule: package-comments
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              `package comment should be of the form "(.+)..."`,
+				Linters:           []string{"revive"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0013",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.
+			// rule: exported
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              `comment on exported (.+) should be of the form "(.+)..."`,
+				Linters:           []string{"revive"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0014",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Annoying issue about not having a comment. The rare codebase has such comments.
+			// rule: package-comments
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              `should have a package comment`,
+				Linters:           []string{"revive"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0015",
+			},
+		},
+	},
+	"stdErrorHandling": {
+		{
+			// Almost all programs ignore errors on these functions and in most cases it's ok.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text: "Error return value of .((os\\.)?std(out|err)\\..*|.*Close" +
+					"|.*Flush|os\\.Remove(All)?|.*print(f|ln)?|os\\.(Un)?Setenv). is not checked",
+				Linters:           []string{"errcheck"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0001",
+			},
+		},
+	},
+	"commonFalsePositives": {
+		{
+			// Too many false-positives on 'unsafe' usage.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "G103: Use of unsafe calls should be audited",
+				Linters:           []string{"gosec"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0006",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Too many false-positives for parametrized shell calls.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "G204: Subprocess launched with variable",
+				Linters:           []string{"gosec"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0007",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// False positive is triggered by 'src, err := ioutil.ReadFile(filename)'.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "G304: Potential file inclusion via variable",
+				Linters:           []string{"gosec"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0010",
+			},
+		},
+	},
+	"legacy": {
+		{
+			// Common false positives.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "(possible misuse of unsafe.Pointer|should have signature)",
+				Linters:           []string{"govet"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0004",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Developers tend to write in C-style with an explicit 'break' in a 'switch', so it's ok to ignore.
+			// CheckScopedBreak
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "SA4011",
+				Linters:           []string{"staticcheck"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0005",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Duplicated errcheck checks.
+			// Errors unhandled.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "G104",
+				Linters:           []string{"gosec"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0008",
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			// Too many issues in popular repos.
+			BaseRule: config.BaseRule{
+				Text:              "(G301|G302|G307): Expect (directory permissions to be 0750|file permissions to be 0600) or less",
+				Linters:           []string{"gosec"},
+				InternalReference: "EXC0009",
+			},
+		},
+	},
+}
+
+func getDefaultLintersExclusions(names []string) []config.ExcludeRule {
+	var rules []config.ExcludeRule
+
+	for _, name := range names {
+		rules = append(rules, defaultLintersExclusions[name]...)
+	}
+
+	return rules
+}