Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Configure path prefix via processor abstraction #1226
Configure path prefix via processor abstraction #1226
Changes from all commits
4f6992d
b68ee0d
0ed243c
c0121d5
2dca06e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current logic seems fine to me.
Just a note on immutability, I just take a look at existing implementation of processors. Seems like https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/blob/master/pkg/result/processors/utils.go#L40 is widely used (this function create a copy of slides).
What do you think ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, it's safe for this to be mutating the passed in slice because, by definition, the processors happen serially, so there's no risk of a race on the mutated memory.
I would guess the transformSlices function exists because it's easy to mess up working with a slice of values -- every value in a range loop is a copy, etc, etc.
As it is, I figured this is a memory-sensitive application and the Issue struct is non-trivial in its size, so I'd avoid the unnecessary copies and alloc.
Without running any sort of measurements, I'm guessing there's a lot of fat around this processor chain's memory usage and shifting to a pattern like that I've used here would cut it down a bunch.