Fix a set of wrong string format issue

It will fix FAB-1482.

Change-Id: I88777803f37e06f01d8c8578dd61699206873d26
Signed-off-by: grapebaba <[email protected]>

Author: GrapeBaBa

common/cauthdsl/cauthdsl_test.go

@@ -45,13 +45,13 @@ func TestSimpleSignature(t *testing.T) {
 	}
 
 	if !spe.Authenticate(nil, [][]byte{signers[0]}, [][]byte{validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to succeed with  valid signatures")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to succeed with  valid signatures")
 	}
 	if spe.Authenticate(nil, [][]byte{signers[0]}, [][]byte{invalidSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to fail given the invalid signature")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to fail given the invalid signature")
 	}
 	if spe.Authenticate(nil, [][]byte{signers[1]}, [][]byte{validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to fail because signers[1] is not authorized in the policy, despite his valid signature")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to fail because signers[1] is not authorized in the policy, despite his valid signature")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -65,13 +65,13 @@ func TestMultipleSignature(t *testing.T) {
 	}
 
 	if !spe.Authenticate(nil, signers, [][]byte{validSignature, validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to succeed with  valid signatures")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to succeed with  valid signatures")
 	}
 	if spe.Authenticate(nil, signers, [][]byte{validSignature, invalidSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to fail given one of two invalid signatures")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to fail given one of two invalid signatures")
 	}
 	if spe.Authenticate(nil, [][]byte{signers[0], signers[0]}, [][]byte{validSignature, validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to fail because although there were two valid signatures, one was duplicated")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to fail because although there were two valid signatures, one was duplicated")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -85,13 +85,13 @@ func TestComplexNestedSignature(t *testing.T) {
 	}
 
 	if !spe.Authenticate(nil, signers, [][]byte{validSignature, validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to succeed with valid signatures")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to succeed with valid signatures")
 	}
 	if spe.Authenticate(nil, signers, [][]byte{invalidSignature, validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication failure as only the signature of signer[1] was valid")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication failure as only the signature of signer[1] was valid")
 	}
 	if !spe.Authenticate(nil, [][]byte{signers[0], signers[0]}, [][]byte{validSignature, validSignature}) {
-		t.Errorf("Expected authentication to succeed because the rule allows duplicated signatures for signer[0]")
+		t.Error("Expected authentication to succeed because the rule allows duplicated signatures for signer[0]")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -104,6 +104,6 @@ func TestNegatively(t *testing.T) {
 	_ = proto.Unmarshal(b, policy)
 	_, err := NewSignaturePolicyEvaluator(policy, mch)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have errored compiling because the Type field was nil")
+		t.Fatal("Should have errored compiling because the Type field was nil")
 	}
 }

common/configtx/bytes_handler.go

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ import (
 	cb "github.com/hyperledger/fabric/protos/common"
 )
 
-// BytesHandler is a trivial ConfigHandler which simpy tracks the bytes stores in a config
+// BytesHandler is a trivial ConfigHandler which simply tracks the bytes stores in a config
 type BytesHandler struct {
 	config   map[string][]byte
 	proposed map[string][]byte

common/configtx/filter_test.go

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ func TestForwardNonConfig(t *testing.T) {
 		Payload: []byte("Opaque"),
 	})
 	if result != filter.Forward {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have forwarded opaque message")
+		t.Fatal("Should have forwarded opaque message")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -66,11 +66,11 @@ func TestAcceptGoodConfig(t *testing.T) {
 	}
 	result, committer := cf.Apply(configEnvelope)
 	if result != filter.Accept {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have indicated a good config message causes a reconfiguration")
+		t.Fatal("Should have indicated a good config message causes a reconfiguration")
 	}
 
 	if !committer.Isolated() {
-		t.Fatalf("Configuration transactions should be isolated to their own block")
+		t.Fatal("Configuration transactions should be isolated to their own block")
 	}
 
 	committer.Commit()
@@ -88,6 +88,6 @@ func TestRejectBadConfig(t *testing.T) {
 		Payload: configBytes,
 	})
 	if result != filter.Reject {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have rejected bad config message")
+		t.Fatal("Should have rejected bad config message")
 	}
 }

common/configtx/manager.go

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ import (
 	cb "github.com/hyperledger/fabric/protos/common"
 
 	"github.com/golang/protobuf/proto"
+	"errors"
 )
 
 // Handler provides a hook which allows other pieces of code to participate in config proposals
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@ type configurationManager struct {
 // or an error if there is a problem with the configuration envelope
 func computeChainIDAndSequence(configtx *cb.ConfigurationEnvelope) (string, uint64, error) {
 	if len(configtx.Items) == 0 {
-		return "", 0, fmt.Errorf("Empty envelope unsupported")
+		return "", 0, errors.New("Empty envelope unsupported")
 	}
 
 	m := uint64(0)     //configtx.Items[0].LastModified
@@ -115,7 +116,7 @@ func computeChainIDAndSequence(configtx *cb.ConfigurationEnvelope) (string, uint
 func NewConfigurationManager(configtx *cb.ConfigurationEnvelope, pm policies.Manager, handlers map[cb.ConfigurationItem_ConfigurationType]Handler) (Manager, error) {
 	for ctype := range cb.ConfigurationItem_ConfigurationType_name {
 		if _, ok := handlers[cb.ConfigurationItem_ConfigurationType(ctype)]; !ok {
-			return nil, fmt.Errorf("Must supply a handler for all known types")
+			return nil, errors.New("Must supply a handler for all known types")
 		}
 	}
 

common/configtx/manager_test.go

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ import (
 	cb "github.com/hyperledger/fabric/protos/common"
 
 	"github.com/golang/protobuf/proto"
+	"errors"
 )
 
 var defaultChain = "DefaultChainID"
@@ -43,7 +44,7 @@ type mockPolicy struct {
 
 func (mp *mockPolicy) Evaluate(headers [][]byte, payload []byte, identities [][]byte, signatures [][]byte) error {
 	if mp == nil {
-		return fmt.Errorf("Invoked nil policy")
+		return errors.New("Invoked nil policy")
 	}
 	return mp.policyResult
 }
@@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ func TestOmittedHandler(t *testing.T) {
 	}, &mockPolicyManager{&mockPolicy{}}, map[cb.ConfigurationItem_ConfigurationType]Handler{})
 
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have failed to construct manager because handlers were missing")
+		t.Fatal("Should have failed to construct manager because handlers were missing")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -105,12 +106,12 @@ func TestWrongChainID(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored when validating a new configuration set the wrong chain ID")
+		t.Error("Should have errored when validating a new configuration set the wrong chain ID")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored when applying a new configuration with the wrong chain ID")
+		t.Error("Should have errored when applying a new configuration with the wrong chain ID")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -130,12 +131,12 @@ func TestOldConfigReplay(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored when validating a configuration that is not a newer sequence number")
+		t.Error("Should have errored when validating a configuration that is not a newer sequence number")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored when applying a configuration that is not a newer sequence number")
+		t.Error("Should have errored when applying a configuration that is not a newer sequence number")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -148,7 +149,7 @@ func TestInvalidInitialConfigByStructure(t *testing.T) {
 	}, &mockPolicyManager{&mockPolicy{}}, defaultHandlers())
 
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have failed to construct configuration by policy")
+		t.Fatal("Should have failed to construct configuration by policy")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -197,12 +198,12 @@ func TestConfigChangeRegressedSequence(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored validating config because foo's sequence number regressed")
+		t.Error("Should have errored validating config because foo's sequence number regressed")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored applying config because foo's sequence number regressed")
+		t.Error("Should have errored applying config because foo's sequence number regressed")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -226,12 +227,12 @@ func TestConfigChangeOldSequence(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored validating config because bar was new but its sequence number was old")
+		t.Error("Should have errored validating config because bar was new but its sequence number was old")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored applying config because bar was new but its sequence number was old")
+		t.Error("Should have errored applying config because bar was new but its sequence number was old")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -257,12 +258,12 @@ func TestConfigImplicitDelete(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored validating config because foo was implicitly deleted")
+		t.Error("Should have errored validating config because foo was implicitly deleted")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored applying config because foo was implicitly deleted")
+		t.Error("Should have errored applying config because foo was implicitly deleted")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -280,12 +281,12 @@ func TestEmptyConfigUpdate(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should not errored validating config because new config is empty")
+		t.Error("Should not errored validating config because new config is empty")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should not errored applying config because new config is empty")
+		t.Error("Should not errored applying config because new config is empty")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -313,12 +314,12 @@ func TestSilentConfigModification(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should not errored validating config because foo was silently modified (despite modification allowed by policy)")
+		t.Error("Should not errored validating config because foo was silently modified (despite modification allowed by policy)")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should not errored applying config because foo was silently modified (despite modification allowed by policy)")
+		t.Error("Should not errored applying config because foo was silently modified (despite modification allowed by policy)")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -331,7 +332,7 @@ func TestInvalidInitialConfigByPolicy(t *testing.T) {
 	// mockPolicyManager will return non-validating defualt policy
 
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Fatalf("Should have failed to construct configuration by policy")
+		t.Fatal("Should have failed to construct configuration by policy")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -355,12 +356,12 @@ func TestConfigChangeViolatesPolicy(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored validating config because policy rejected modification")
+		t.Error("Should have errored validating config because policy rejected modification")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored applying config because policy rejected modification")
+		t.Error("Should have errored applying config because policy rejected modification")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -370,7 +371,7 @@ func (fh failHandler) BeginConfig()    {}
 func (fh failHandler) RollbackConfig() {}
 func (fh failHandler) CommitConfig()   {}
 func (fh failHandler) ProposeConfig(item *cb.ConfigurationItem) error {
-	return fmt.Errorf("Fail")
+	return errors.New("Fail")
 }
 
 // TestInvalidProposal checks that even if the policy allows the transaction and the sequence etc. is well formed,
@@ -393,12 +394,12 @@ func TestInvalidProposal(t *testing.T) {
 
 	err = cm.Validate(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored validating config because the handler rejected it")
+		t.Error("Should have errored validating config because the handler rejected it")
 	}
 
 	err = cm.Apply(newConfig)
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored applying config because the handler rejected it")
+		t.Error("Should have errored applying config because the handler rejected it")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -413,7 +414,7 @@ func TestMissingHeader(t *testing.T) {
 	}, &mockPolicyManager{&mockPolicy{}}, handlers)
 
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored creating the configuration manager because of the missing header")
+		t.Error("Should have errored creating the configuration manager because of the missing header")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -425,7 +426,7 @@ func TestMissingChainID(t *testing.T) {
 	}, &mockPolicyManager{&mockPolicy{}}, handlers)
 
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored creating the configuration manager because of the missing header")
+		t.Error("Should have errored creating the configuration manager because of the missing header")
 	}
 }
 
@@ -440,6 +441,6 @@ func TestMismatchedChainID(t *testing.T) {
 	}, &mockPolicyManager{&mockPolicy{}}, handlers)
 
 	if err == nil {
-		t.Errorf("Should have errored creating the configuration manager because of the missing header")
+		t.Error("Should have errored creating the configuration manager because of the missing header")
 	}
 }

common/policies/policy.go

@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ import (
 	cb "github.com/hyperledger/fabric/protos/common"
 
 	"github.com/golang/protobuf/proto"
+	"errors"
 )
 
 // Policy is used to determine if a signature is valid
@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ func newPolicy(policySource *cb.Policy, ch cauthdsl.CryptoHelper) (*policy, erro
 	}
 
 	if envelopeWrapper.SignaturePolicy == nil {
-		return nil, fmt.Errorf("Nil signature policy received")
+		return nil, errors.New("Nil signature policy received")
 	}
 
 	sigPolicy := envelopeWrapper.SignaturePolicy
@@ -73,12 +74,12 @@ func newPolicy(policySource *cb.Policy, ch cauthdsl.CryptoHelper) (*policy, erro
 // verifies the corresponding signature.
 func (p *policy) Evaluate(header [][]byte, payload []byte, identities [][]byte, signatures [][]byte) error {
 	if p == nil {
-		return fmt.Errorf("Evaluated default policy, results in reject")
+		return errors.New("Evaluated default policy, results in reject")
 	}
 
 	// XXX This is wrong, as the signatures are over the payload envelope, not the message, fix either here, or in cauthdsl once transaction is finalized
 	if !p.evaluator.Authenticate(payload, identities, signatures) {
-		return fmt.Errorf("Failed to authenticate policy")
+		return errors.New("Failed to authenticate policy")
 	}
 	return nil
 }