[GH-658] Add golang-ci lint

[carantunes]

Summary

This PR copies most of the golangci-lint configuration from mattermost-community/mattermost-plugin-autolink#108 into this repo. This helps with a consistent code style and should improve code quality over time.

Most changes are straightforward and just style wise. I did comment on the more tricky ones.

Ticket Link

Fixes #658

[mattermod]

Hello @carantunes,

Thanks for your pull request! A Core Committer will review your pull request soon. For code contributions, you can learn more about the review process here.

[hanzei]

This is amazing work 🎉 Thanks for going through all of these files.

Almost all changes look good. There is one issue with a http header. See my comment below.

I would be fine if you comment out the failing linter and we merge this PR as it is.

[hanzei]

@jfrerich Just to double check: Are we fine with removing these commands?

[carantunes]

@hanzei I did all the requested changes. Only missing clarification on this point. Should I revert this changes? Copied the makefile from autolink as indicated in the issue.

[jfrerich]

I think we should keep and investigate these options. They were implemented some time ago, but the idea being that we could save time by only building the appropriate architecture.

[hanzei]

Well, technically the are stored in Git and saved there. 1/5 that consistency is more important that the build features.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #712 (e398d5e) into master (776692e) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 45.65%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #712      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   32.38%   32.46%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          52       52              
  Lines        5373     5357      -16     
==========================================
- Hits         1740     1739       -1     
+ Misses       3433     3417      -16     
- Partials      200      201       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
server/atlassian_connect.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
server/auth_token.go	3.75% <0.00%> (ø)
server/http.go	26.34% <0.00%> (ø)
server/info.go	55.26% <0.00%> (+2.76%)	⬆️
server/instance_cloud.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
server/instance_server.go	7.14% <0.00%> (ø)
server/instances.go	29.70% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
server/stats.go	10.65% <0.00%> (-0.18%)	⬇️
server/user_cloud.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
server/user_server.go	6.81% <0.00%> (+1.15%)	⬆️
... and 29 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 776692e...f47bf95. Read the comment docs.

[jasonblais]

@jfrerich kind reminder to help with a review of this PR

[jfrerich]

Amazing amount of work :) Thanks, @Adovenmuehle!

@hanzei, I think we should keep the makefile commands and investigate them. We should consider adding them to the starter-template plugin.

[jfrerich]

I think we should keep and investigate these options. They were implemented some time ago, but the idea being that we could save time by only building the appropriate architecture.

[hanzei]

@DHaussermann Maybe this is a good PR to test in the next review process

[DHaussermann]

/update-branch

[mattermod]

Error trying to update the PR.
Please do it manually.

[DHaussermann]

Thanks @carantunes for this contribution. I have successfully build and deployed the plugin. I have also done some brief regression testing around core functionality Connect/disconnect create and attach issue etc.. and found no issues.

@hanzei regarding additional testing, this would get alot of coverage to catch potential regression when I do the release testing once Jira 3.0.1 is ready and we have a version bump PR.

Do you feel the risk if fairly low here and we can merge this in before the 3.0.1. release? If so, maybe next steps would be to resolve the conflicts and do one more quick round of testing to get this merged in.

[mattermod]

This PR has been automatically labelled "stale" because it hasn't had recent activity.
A core team member will check in on the status of the PR to help with questions.
Thank you for your contribution!

/cc @jasonblais @jfrerich @emilyacook

[hanzei]

@DHaussermann I highly doubt we will release a 3.0.1 from master. There have been a lot of changes on master since 3.0.0. If we release a 3.0.0, I would expect it to be a released from a separate branch with cherry-picked commits.

Hence, I think it's fine to merge this PR with low amount of testing and rely on the 3.1.0 release testing to catch any bugs.

@carantunes Could you please merge master into your branch?

[mattermod]

This PR has been automatically labelled "stale" because it hasn't had recent activity.
A core team member will check in on the status of the PR to help with questions.
Thank you for your contribution!

/cc @jasonblais @jfrerich @emilyacook

[hanzei]

@DHaussermann Given that 3.0.1 will be not cut from master would be fine merging merging this PR as it is?

[DHaussermann]

Tested and passed
I did some significant regression testing here #712 (comment)

There is no need to delay the merge to master

Any other regression risk will get covered in the next round of release testing.

Yes @hanzei please merge.

Huge thanks to @carantunes for this enhancement!

[hanzei]

Awesome work @carantunes 🚀

[carantunes]

Thank you! 🥳 Happy to help again if something comes up!