Add notimestamp linter by Karthik-K-N · Pull Request #105 · kubernetes-sigs/kube-api-linter

Karthik-K-N · 2025-06-25T18:07:12Z

Adds a new notimestamp linter that checks for any fields in struct having timestamp string or substring.

Fixes: #26

everettraven

Unlike the nophase linter, this linter has a suggested replacement for the substring timestamp (time).

At the very least, we should ensure that we include that replacement suggestion in the report message.

everettraven · 2025-06-25T18:53:00Z

+		// First check if the struct field name contains 'timestamp'
+		if strings.Contains(strings.ToLower(fieldName), "timestamp") {
+			pass.Reportf(field.Pos(),
+				"field %s: fields with timestamp substring should be avoided",


We should probably include in the message what alternative should be used in place of this. I believe the appropriate replacement here would be time.

Seeing as how this linter has a proposed replacement, should we also implement the suggested fix for this so that if someone were to run lint --fix that it would automatically apply the suggestion?

hey, A quick question, whats the right way of debugging or to get to know the value of some variable, If I try

fmt.Println(fieldName)

I dont see anything getting printed on the console

How are you trying to debug it? Running the actual tool or via the tests?

If it is through the tests, you'd want to tell it to be verbose using the -v flag with go test.

oh ok, I will give a try, Thanks, I was trying with tool

./bin/golangci-kube-api-linter run kube-api-linter/pkg/analysis/notimestamp/testdata/src/a/a.go --fix

Karthik-K-N · 2025-06-30T13:54:16Z

Updated the PR to address review comments, Couple of pending questions

Currently I need to run

./bin/golangci-kube-api-linter run /kube-api-linter/pkg/analysis/notimestamp/testdata/src/a/a.go --fix

twice to fix the names, Once for fixing field names and second time is for fixing json tags. Not sure thats ideal.

GIven that we are updating the json tags and field comments are starting with json tags, Should we fix that comment also to use the latest tag or can we depend on the commentStart linter to fix it, by running it again.

JoelSpeed · 2025-06-30T14:19:30Z

+
+The `notimestamp` linter checks that the fields in the API types don't contain a 'Timestamp', or any field which contains 'Timestamp' as a substring, e.g CreateTimestamp.


Maybe?

Suggested change

The `notimestamp` linter checks that the fields in the API types don't contain a 'Timestamp', or any field which contains 'Timestamp' as a substring, e.g CreateTimestamp.

The `notimestamp` linter checks that the fields in the API are not named with the word 'Timestamp'.

What is the reason for this from the API conventions, might be good to help explain that context here a little?

Is there any other place apart from https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api-conventions.md#naming-conventions, To look for reasons for avoiding it.

I would generally try to use git blame to work out the PR that introduced the rule, and see if there is additional context there. If not, perhaps #api-reviews on the Kuberentes slack might be able to help

sure thanks, I will check

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-09T15:20:08Z

+// Initializer returns the AnalyzerInitializer for this
+// Analyzer so that it can be added to the registry.
+func Initializer() initializer {
+	return initializer{}
+}
+
+// intializer implements the AnalyzerInitializer interface.
+type initializer struct{}
+
+// Name returns the name of the Analyzer.
+func (initializer) Name() string {
+	return name
+}
+
+// Init returns the intialized Analyzer.
+func (initializer) Init(cfg config.LintersConfig) (*analysis.Analyzer, error) {
+	return Analyzer, nil
+}
+
+// Default determines whether this Analyzer is on by default, or not.
+func (initializer) Default() bool {
+	return true
+}


A recent refactor has changed the way functions init, can you please rebase and look at another, non-configurable linter to see how this should look now.

commentstart is probably a good example to crib from

sure will do that

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-09T15:23:07Z

 			nofloats.Initializer(),
 			nomaps.Initializer(),
 			nophase.Initializer(),
+			notimestamp.Initializer(),


This will conflict when you rebase, we don't maintain this list anymore as each linter now self registers by blank importing in a package called registration

Karthik-K-N · 2025-07-21T06:48:40Z

Rebased and updated the PR, Ready for review. Thanks.

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-22T13:53:24Z

I think this should be good to go once this last round is resolved, should we squash the commits also?

Karthik-K-N · 2025-07-22T16:47:03Z

Addressed review comments, Added few more fields for testing, Squashed commits. Please take a look. Thanks.

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-23T11:35:06Z

+
+	if tagReplacementName != tagInfo.Name {
+		suggestedFixes = append(suggestedFixes, analysis.SuggestedFix{
+			Message: "replace json tag with Time",


Can we include the before and after strings here as we did with the field name please

oops, Missed it, Updated it now.

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-23T11:48:48Z

+
+type NoTimeStampTestStruct struct {
+	// +optional
+	TimeStamp *time.Time `json:"timeStamp,omitempty"` // want "field TimeStamp: prefer use of the term time over timestamp"


Does the linter look at the type spec at all? Would a metv1.Time still work?

Currently the linter does not look at the type spec, on looks for fields with timestamp, wrt to checking type spec. I think we will be covering that in nodurations linter.

JoelSpeed · 2025-07-23T12:47:30Z

/lgtm
/approve

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-23T12:47:40Z

[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

Details

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

k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Jun 25, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from everettraven and jpbetz June 25, 2025 18:07

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 25, 2025

everettraven reviewed Jun 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

everettraven mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2025

linter: add namingconventions linter #106

Merged

JoelSpeed reviewed Jun 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread pkg/analysis/notimestamp/analyzer.go Outdated

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 26, 2025

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from 9957ad0 to f751830 Compare June 30, 2025 13:51

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jun 30, 2025

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from f751830 to e462791 Compare June 30, 2025 13:58

JoelSpeed reviewed Jun 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from e462791 to 627e267 Compare June 30, 2025 15:06

sbueringer mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2025

Umbrella issue: API changes in v1.11 / v1beta2 kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#10852

Closed

62 tasks

JoelSpeed reviewed Jul 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 9, 2025

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from 627e267 to 137c091 Compare July 21, 2025 06:18

k8s-ci-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jul 21, 2025

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from 9beccf6 to d805204 Compare July 21, 2025 06:43

JoelSpeed reviewed Jul 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from 193fcb9 to 7606078 Compare July 22, 2025 16:45

JoelSpeed reviewed Jul 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add notimestamp linter

b461f66

Karthik-K-N force-pushed the add-notimestamp branch from 7606078 to b461f66 Compare July 23, 2025 12:16

k8s-ci-robot assigned JoelSpeed Jul 23, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jul 23, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jul 23, 2025

k8s-ci-robot merged commit 1b29e82 into kubernetes-sigs:main Jul 23, 2025
4 checks passed

Karthik-K-N mentioned this pull request Jul 23, 2025

✨ Bump KAL & add the notimestamps linter kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api#12520

Merged


		The `notimestamp` linter checks that the fields in the API types don't contain a 'Timestamp', or any field which contains 'Timestamp' as a substring, e.g CreateTimestamp.

Uh oh!

Conversation

Karthik-K-N commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Karthik-K-N commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Karthik-K-N commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Karthik-K-N commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JoelSpeed commented Jul 23, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants