3 ms·

> I really prefer the Java "force you to catch exception" model much more to this. https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck/ https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck/ wi

> I really prefer the Java "force you to catch exception" model much more to this. https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck/ https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck/ will tell you if you silently discard the `err` value (though you can still explicitly assign it to _ to ignore). Seems worth using for a lot of projects.

burke 12y ago
We use errcheck for all the Go code we write at Shopify. In many cases, we compile the project using a script that fails if errcheck isn't clean, effectively turning into a "you are forced to catch the exception" sort of idea. It's nice because it's still easy to ignore the err in certain circumstances (e.g. the occasional `_ = f.Close()`), but there's always a visual marker to remind you.
- jroesch 12y ago
  The above comments are just pointing out that the compiler should do this for you. It is great that there are third party tools for this, but a simple lint like this should come for free, especially when this is the endorsed error handling policy.
  - enneff 12y ago
    Not everything belongs in the compiler. Go's "vet" tool might be the place for something like this. But, honestly, I have been writing Go code for 5 years and I can count the number of times that "didn't check the error" was the cause of a bug on one hand.
    - twotwotwo 12y ago
      Agree on not in the compiler. A ton of folks seem to dig errcheck; having that sort of check in vet or in the Go distro somehow seems worthwhile. (Of course, if I feel that way, maybe I should put some effort where my mouth is and try and start on a patch. :)
Intermernet 12y ago
I'm actually quite surprised this functionality hasn't made it into "go vet" yet. It would be useful to be able to do this without a 3rd party utility (although all respect to kisielk for producing such a useful tool).
- rtpg 12y ago
  pleasantly surprised that you could write go tooling to check this, I hope the team is willing to pull things like this in.

burke 12y ago

We use errcheck for all the Go code we write at Shopify. In many cases, we compile the project using a script that fails if errcheck isn't clean, effectively turning into a "you are forced to catch the exception" sort of idea. It's nice because it's still easy to ignore the err in certain circumstances (e.g. the occasional `_ = f.Close()`), but there's always a visual marker to remind you.

jroesch 12y ago
The above comments are just pointing out that the compiler should do this for you. It is great that there are third party tools for this, but a simple lint like this should come for free, especially when this is the endorsed error handling policy.
- enneff 12y ago
  Not everything belongs in the compiler. Go's "vet" tool might be the place for something like this. But, honestly, I have been writing Go code for 5 years and I can count the number of times that "didn't check the error" was the cause of a bug on one hand.
  - twotwotwo 12y ago
    Agree on not in the compiler. A ton of folks seem to dig errcheck; having that sort of check in vet or in the Go distro somehow seems worthwhile. (Of course, if I feel that way, maybe I should put some effort where my mouth is and try and start on a patch. :)

Intermernet 12y ago

I'm actually quite surprised this functionality hasn't made it into "go vet" yet. It would be useful to be able to do this without a 3rd party utility (although all respect to kisielk for producing such a useful tool).

rtpg 12y ago
pleasantly surprised that you could write go tooling to check this, I hope the team is willing to pull things like this in.