🌱 Fix comment issue in controlplane/kubeadm/internal/etcd/etcd.go

[chymy]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Fix comment issue in controlplane/kubeadm/internal/etcd/etcd.go
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @chymy. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[sbueringer]

/lgtm
/ok-to-test

Looks like we're missing some very basic linters. (although I'm not sure there is one which only enforces godoc conventions we care about).

[enxebre]

shouldn't we actually rename the variable to AlarmOK according to convention and [spelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK#:~:text=OK%20(spelling%20variations%20include%20okay,or%20a%20sign%20of%20indifference.)?

[sbueringer]

I think you're right

[chymy]

I will fix.

[fabriziopandini]

@chymy you are doing a great cleanup work!
What about grouping those fixing in bigger bulk, so we can make more discrete improvements and get the most out of reviewers time?

[sbueringer]

@chymy you are doing a great cleanup work!
What about grouping those fixing in bigger bulk, so we can make more discrete improvements and get the most out of reviewers time?

Further improvement of this would be to find out if there are linters we could use via golangci-lint for some of these findings. Then we could introduce the linter and fix issues of the same "kind" all at once (or split them up if they are just too many and introduce the linter in the last PR).

This would work perfectly by first looking for potential linters, then getting consenus via an issue that we actually want to enforce those kind of things and then cleaning it up via a PR. Via the linter we can make sure we never have to manually review or fix those findings again, which would be a huge improvement imho.

[chymy]

Comment issues seems to be too many. Executing the make link command does not check for comment issues.
I use golint is work.

[sbueringer]

/lgtm

[fabriziopandini]

Comment issues seems to be too many. Executing the make link command does not check for comment issues.
I use golint is work.

@chymy if you are interested in this area please chime in the discussion around #4622, so we can agree on a set of linters checks we rely on, while everything else is discretional (including warning from other linters).

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini

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 [fabriziopandini]

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

[chymy]

Comment issues seems to be too many. Executing the make link command does not check for comment issues.
I use golint is work.

@chymy if you are interested in this area please chime in the discussion around #4622, so we can agree on a set of linters checks we rely on, while everything else is discretional (including warning from other linters).

OK, thanks.