func TestWhatever(t *testing.T) {
// ...lots of code
_, _, _, _, _, _, _ = resp3, resp4, fooBefore, subFoo, bar2, barNew, zap2
}
Like, I get it, it's a good feature, it caught quite a lot of typos in my code but can I please get an option to turn this checking off e.g. in unit tests? I just want to yank some APIs, look at their behaviour, and tinker a bit with the data. func TestWhatever(t *testing.T) {
var resp3, resp4, fooBefore, subFoo, bar2, barNew, zap2 theirType
// ...lots of code
}
Alternatively, use '_' where they are being defined: // instead of
resp2, err := doit()
// use
_, err := doit()
If, and given this context it's likely, you're checking these errors with asserts, then either change the name of the error variable, predeclare the err name (`var err error`), or split it into multiple tests instead of one giant spaghetti super test.That said, in a code review, at a minimum, I would probably ask that these variables be checked for nil/default which would completely eliminate this problem.
foo, fooErr := doit()
require.NotNil(foo)
require.NoError(fooErr)
_, _ = foo, fooErr // alternative if you don't want the asserts for some reason, remember to come back later and delete though
// ...repl churn code...
Using the stretchr/testify/require package. This code defines both variables, gives the error a unique name in the scope, and then references the names in two asserts. You won't have to deal with unreferenced name errors in the "repl churn", so you can comment/uncomment code as you go.https://gist.github.com/umanwizard/9793393083a42db933579fe21...
The go devs decided against this since they didn't want to build a highly optimizing (read: slow) compiler, but that is missing the point of developer ergonomics.
Most people nowadays ban building with warnings in CI and allow them during local development. But “CI” was barely a thing when go was developed so they just banned them completely. And now they are probably too stubborn to change.
Q. Why can’t I have feature X?
A. We thought of that already, and your opinion is wrong.
Q. But basically every other language in existence supports this. And it makes development easier. We would really, really like it. Please?
A. Apparently you don’t get it. Here’s a pointer to a 15 year-old post on a mailing list where the first time someone asked for this, we said no. Your opinion is wrong.
Sounds like we agree!