I'm not convinced that float64(a / b) is always an error for integer a and b. It would be interesting to hear how many times such a check fired on the whole Kubernetes repo.

Basically I'm not sure this rises to the level of a vet check, which is a fairly high level. It might be more appropriate for some other checker.

cc @dominikh @mvdan

Adopting this check would mean forcing people to write float64(int(a/b)) for integer a, b to express "no I really mean what the code says". That's pretty unfortunate. In general we do assume that people write what they mean. Vet flags obvious mistakes, but this is not an obvious mistake. There is a way to write an integer divide and a way to write a float divide. Both are reasonable in different circumstances.

Note cmd/vet/README's "Precision" requirement, in particular that a check must not have a significant number of false positives. To move forward with this, we'd need evidence that essentially all instances of float64(a/b) are bugs.

We need evidence to move forward with this, and we don't have any evidence. This seems like a likely decline.

I also note that staticcheck doesn't check this either.

Sorry for the delay.

I mocked up a check to run over the k8s codebase, and came back with five hits, of which four are copies of each other (and harmless, if silly, since in context it amounts to float64((2 * some int) / 2)) and the other is definitely a bug.

This is possibly a slight underestimate since I was only looking for literal float{32,64} casts and there could be some other type with an underlying float type, but I'll accept that this doesn't meet the quality bar for a go vet check. Thanks for the review, though!

Even time.Second / time.Nanosecond is OK, since the time package ensures that there is an integral number of nanoseconds in a second.

I also note that staticcheck doesn't check this either.

Correct, I share your concern about false positives.

Staticcheck has a related check, however, which flags math.Ceil(float64(<integer expression>)) (and identically for math.Floor). This catches one of the common instances of the mistake, with no real false positives to my knowledge. However, that check likely doesn't meet vet's frequency criterion.

Thanks for taking the time to dig up numbers.
No change in consensus, so declining.