Print qualified field name in error messages

[Karthik-K-N]

Fixes: #158

[JoelSpeed]

Approach LGTM, please continue

[krishagarwal278]

Hi @Karthik-K-N was wondering if there is a specific reason to pass qualifiedFieldName string twice here?

[Karthik-K-N]

Thats because qualifiedFieldName is constructed in i.inspector.WithStack() function and passed to processFieldWithRecovery function and from where it will be passed to the inspectField function.

Function definition of inspectField function looks like this

inspectField func(field *ast.Field, jsonTagInfo extractjsontags.FieldTagInfo, markersAccess markers.Markers, qualifiedFieldName string)

inspectField is what used by the analyzers.

[Karthik-K-N]

Implemented the error message handling for most of the linters, Only optionalfields and requiredfields are pending will take it in a separate PR.

[Karthik-K-N]

@JoelSpeed PR is ready for review, Please take a look when time permits, Thanks.

[JoelSpeed]

@Karthik-K-N Would you mind rebasing and resolving the conflicts?

[JoelSpeed]

Apart from the merge conflicts, this LGTM, thanks @Karthik-K-N

[Karthik-K-N]

Done, Thank you.

[Karthik-K-N]

Also just a thought, Currently the pkg/analysis contains both anaylysers, helpers, utils, May be if the analyzers are separated out into separate directory. It may look well organised.

[JoelSpeed]

/lgtm
/approve

Thanks for this one

Also just a thought, Currently the pkg/analysis contains both anaylysers, helpers, utils, May be if the analyzers are separated out into separate directory. It may look well organised.

Yeah there's definitely some potential for re-organisation. I'd probably pick the utils out and maybe put the helpers as a sibling to analysis, though they are kind of analyzers in their own right 🤔

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed, Karthik-K-N

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [JoelSpeed]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[Karthik-K-N]

/lgtm /approve

Thanks for this one

Also just a thought, Currently the pkg/analysis contains both anaylysers, helpers, utils, May be if the analyzers are separated out into separate directory. It may look well organised.

Yeah there's definitely some potential for re-organisation. I'd probably pick the utils out and maybe put the helpers as a sibling to analysis, though they are kind of analyzers in their own right 🤔

Yeah, Though they are analysers, I feel its more like analyzer's helpers, Like analyzers actually doing work and internally these helps them.