please show a complete reproducer.

Related Issues

• vet: fmt.Errorf("ordinary string") should be replaced by errors.New("ordinary string") #17173 (closed)

_{(Emoji vote if this was helpful or unhelpful; more detailed feedback welcome in this discussion.)}

To be clear: the intent of the check is catch mistakes of this form:

https://go.dev/play/p/6dPT8b-lyZa

func main() {
	oops("this is 100% wrong!")
}

func oops(s string) {
	log.Printf(s) // "2009/11/10 23:00:00 this is 100%!w(MISSING)rong!"
}

To be clear: the intent of the check is catch mistakes of this form:

https://go.dev/play/p/6dPT8b-lyZa

func main() {
oops("this is 100% wrong!")
}

func oops(s string) {
log.Printf(s) // "2009/11/10 23:00:00 this is 100%!w(MISSING)rong!"
}

Thanks Alan.

On the other hand, if we had

func oops(s string, args ...any)  {
    log.Printf(s, args...)
}

we would probably not want to see a go vet warning.

I believe the check is transitive:

package main

import "log"

func main() {
	var s string

	oops("foo") // won't warn
	oops(s)     // will warn
}

func oops(s string, args ...any) {
	log.Printf(s, args...)
}

In any case you won't get a warning if arguments are being passed.

If you think there is a bug here, please show us the code that is triggering an incorrect warning. Thanks.

In any case you won't get a warning if arguments are being passed.

If you think there is a bug here, please show us the code that is triggering an incorrect warning. Thanks.

OK, I'll try to extract a small example this weekend.

Alan, Ian and Sean
Thanks for your explanations.

I have now checked a sample of these errors generated when running go vet over my codebase
and see that the errors are correct (or at least reasonable).

I am therefore closing the ticket.

Thanks for following up.