add lint test:-confusing-naming

[hellspawn679]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• (Enable more revive linter rules #5506)

Description of the changes

• fixes the make lint check that was failing

How was this change tested?

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: yarn lint and yarn test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.21%. Comparing base (3f82224) to head (e2ad0f7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5507      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.20%   96.21%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         327      327              
  Lines       16011    16011              
==========================================
+ Hits        15403    15405       +2     
+ Misses        434      433       -1     
+ Partials      174      173       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger_v1	8.05% <15.38%> (ø)
badger_v2	1.93% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-3.x-v1	16.43% <38.46%> (ø)
cassandra-3.x-v2	1.85% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v1	16.43% <38.46%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2	1.85% <0.00%> (ø)
elasticsearch-7-v1	18.89% <61.53%> (ø)
elasticsearch-8-v1	19.08% <61.53%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
elasticsearch-8-v2	19.07% <61.53%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
grpc_v1	9.47% <15.38%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
grpc_v2	7.52% <15.38%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
kafka	9.78% <15.38%> (ø)
opensearch-1-v1	18.93% <61.53%> (ø)
opensearch-2-v1	18.94% <61.53%> (ø)
opensearch-2-v2	18.93% <61.53%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
unittests	93.91% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[yurishkuro]

there are no lint rules that are currently failing on the main branch. Where do these come from?

[hellspawn679]

there are no lint rules that are currently failing on the main branch. Where do these come from?

when I run make lint locally I was getting these error's

INFO [runner] linters took 727.619655ms with stages: goanalysis_metalinter: 702.156146ms 
cmd/anonymizer/app/anonymizer/anonymizer.go:129:12: G306: Expect WriteFile permissions to be 0600 or less (gosec)
        if err := os.WriteFile(filepath.Clean(a.mappingFile), dat, os.ModePerm); err != nil {
                  ^
cmd/internal/flags/admin_test.go:59:2: negative-positive: use assert.Positive (testifylint)
        assert.Greater(t, port, 0)

[yurishkuro]

you may have different version of the tools, try make install-test-tools

[yurishkuro]

This is not what the linter was complaining about. Your names violate Go coding practices.

[hellspawn679]

so how should i fix this naming problem (Warns on methods with names that differ only by capitalization) ?

[hellspawn679]

will it be okay if i name it like startOTLPReceiverInternal

[varshith257]

I think it is fine to use startOTLPReceiver as of camelCase which is generally used in Go.

[yurishkuro]

startOTLPReceiverInternal seems ok, but this needs to be decided on a case by case basis, there may be better options in other situations.

[yurishkuro]

Most of the changes proposed are much worse than what we have.