skip main_test.go due a false positive

[ilopezluna]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @ilopezluna, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request modifies the project's linting configuration to prevent a specific test file, main_test.go, from being processed by the linter. This change is necessary to resolve a false positive detection that was hindering the linting process, ensuring smoother and more accurate code quality checks going forward.

Highlights

• Linting Configuration: The .golangci.yml configuration has been updated to explicitly skip main_test.go from linting checks. This change addresses a false positive issue that was occurring with this specific test file.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request proposes to skip linting for main_test.go to resolve what is described as a false positive. However, the linter is likely flagging a valid issue with the test design: the test modifies a global variable. This is an unsafe pattern that can lead to flaky tests. Instead of suppressing the linter warning, I recommend addressing the root cause. My review suggests refactoring the code to use dependency injection for the logger, which would eliminate the global state modification and resolve the linter issue properly, improving overall code quality.

[gemini-code-assist]

While this change will fix the CI build, it does so by hiding a potential issue in main_test.go. The test modifies a global logger variable, which is an unsafe pattern that can lead to flaky tests, especially if they are run in parallel.

A better solution would be to refactor createLlamaCppConfigFromEnv to accept a logger instance. This would make it more testable without needing to modify global state. I recommend removing these lines and refactoring the code in main.go and main_test.go instead. This will resolve the linter error in a cleaner way and improve the overall code quality.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey there - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

• The exclusion rule for SA5011 applies to any main_test.go in the repo; consider narrowing the path (e.g., to the specific directory/package where the false positive occurs) so future real SA5011 issues in other main_test.go files are not suppressed.
• Instead of pointing to a specific GitHub Actions run URL in the comment, it may be more stable to reference the underlying staticcheck false-positive pattern or a tracking issue so the rationale remains clear after CI logs expire.

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- The exclusion rule for SA5011 applies to any `main_test.go` in the repo; consider narrowing the `path` (e.g., to the specific directory/package where the false positive occurs) so future real SA5011 issues in other `main_test.go` files are not suppressed.
- Instead of pointing to a specific GitHub Actions run URL in the comment, it may be more stable to reference the underlying staticcheck false-positive pattern or a tracking issue so the rationale remains clear after CI logs expire.

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}