feat(conflictingmarkers): Make error messages more precise

Updates the `conflictingmarkers` analyzer to include the struct name in the error message, changing the output from:

"field <fieldName> has conflicting markers..."

to:

"field <structName>.<fieldName> has conflicting markers..."

This provides more precise context, making it easier for developers to locate the source of the error, especially in complex types. The struct name is reliably determined by inspecting the AST stack during analysis.

Author: yongruilin

pkg/analysis/conflictingmarkers/analyzer.go

@@ -68,25 +68,36 @@ func (a *analyzer) run(pass *analysis.Pass) (any, error) {
 	}
 
 	inspect.InspectFields(func(field *ast.Field, stack []ast.Node, _ extractjsontags.FieldTagInfo, markersAccess markers.Markers) {
-		checkField(pass, field, markersAccess, a.conflictSets)
+		var structName string
+		// Find the struct name from the stack
+		for i := len(stack) - 2; i >= 0; i-- {
+			if typeSpec, ok := stack[i].(*ast.TypeSpec); ok {
+				if _, ok := typeSpec.Type.(*ast.StructType); ok {
+					structName = typeSpec.Name.Name
+					break
+				}
+			}
+		}
+
+		checkField(pass, field, structName, markersAccess, a.conflictSets)
 	})
 
 	return nil, nil //nolint:nilnil
 }
 
-func checkField(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, markersAccess markers.Markers, conflictSets []ConflictSet) {
+func checkField(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, structName string, markersAccess markers.Markers, conflictSets []ConflictSet) {
 	if field == nil || len(field.Names) == 0 {
 		return
 	}
 
 	markers := utils.TypeAwareMarkerCollectionForField(pass, markersAccess, field)
 
 	for _, conflictSet := range conflictSets {
-		checkConflict(pass, field, markers, conflictSet)
+		checkConflict(pass, field, structName, markers, conflictSet)
 	}
 }
 
-func checkConflict(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, markers markers.MarkerSet, conflictSet ConflictSet) {
+func checkConflict(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, structName string, markers markers.MarkerSet, conflictSet ConflictSet) {
 	// Track which sets have markers present
 	conflictingMarkers := make([]sets.Set[string], 0)
 
@@ -106,11 +117,11 @@ func checkConflict(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, markers markers.Marker
 
 	// If two or more sets have markers, report the conflict
 	if len(conflictingMarkers) >= 2 {
-		reportConflict(pass, field, conflictSet, conflictingMarkers)
+		reportConflict(pass, field, structName, conflictSet, conflictingMarkers)
 	}
 }
 
-func reportConflict(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, conflictSet ConflictSet, conflictingMarkers []sets.Set[string]) {
+func reportConflict(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, structName string, conflictSet ConflictSet, conflictingMarkers []sets.Set[string]) {
 	// Build a descriptive message showing which sets conflict
 	setDescriptions := make([]string, 0, len(conflictingMarkers))
 
@@ -119,8 +130,13 @@ func reportConflict(pass *analysis.Pass, field *ast.Field, conflictSet ConflictS
 		setDescriptions = append(setDescriptions, fmt.Sprintf("%v", markersList))
 	}
 
+	fieldName := field.Names[0].Name
+	if structName != "" {
+		fieldName = structName + "." + fieldName
+	}
+
 	message := fmt.Sprintf("field %s has conflicting markers: %s: {%s}. %s",
-		field.Names[0].Name,
+		fieldName,
 		conflictSet.Name,
 		strings.Join(setDescriptions, ", "),
 		conflictSet.Description)

pkg/analysis/conflictingmarkers/testdata/src/a/a.go

@@ -17,31 +17,31 @@ type TestStruct struct {
 	// Conflict: marker1 vs marker3 (both with values)
 	// +marker1:=value1
 	// +marker3:=value2
-	ConflictWithValuesField string `json:"conflictWithValuesField"` // want "field ConflictWithValuesField has conflicting markers: test_conflict: \\{\\[marker1\\], \\[marker3\\]\\}. Test markers conflict with each other"
+	ConflictWithValuesField string `json:"conflictWithValuesField"` // want "field TestStruct.ConflictWithValuesField has conflicting markers: test_conflict: \\{\\[marker1\\], \\[marker3\\]\\}. Test markers conflict with each other"
 
 	// Conflict: marker1 vs marker3 (mixed with and without values)
 	// +marker1
 	// +marker3:=someValue
-	ConflictMixedField string `json:"conflictMixedField"` // want "field ConflictMixedField has conflicting markers: test_conflict: \\{\\[marker1\\], \\[marker3\\]\\}. Test markers conflict with each other"
+	ConflictMixedField string `json:"conflictMixedField"` // want "field TestStruct.ConflictMixedField has conflicting markers: test_conflict: \\{\\[marker1\\], \\[marker3\\]\\}. Test markers conflict with each other"
 
 	// Multiple conflicts with multiple markers in each set:
 	// +marker1
 	// +marker2
 	// +marker3
 	// +marker4
-	MultipleConflictsField string `json:"multipleConflictsField"` // want "field MultipleConflictsField has conflicting markers: test_conflict: \\{\\[marker1 marker2\\], \\[marker3 marker4\\]\\}. Test markers conflict with each other"
+	MultipleConflictsField string `json:"multipleConflictsField"` // want "field TestStruct.MultipleConflictsField has conflicting markers: test_conflict: \\{\\[marker1 marker2\\], \\[marker3 marker4\\]\\}. Test markers conflict with each other"
 
 	// Three-way conflict: marker5 vs marker7 vs marker9
 	// +marker5
 	// +marker7
 	// +marker9
-	ThreeWayConflictField string `json:"threeWayConflictField"` // want "field ThreeWayConflictField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker5\\], \\[marker7\\], \\[marker9\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
+	ThreeWayConflictField string `json:"threeWayConflictField"` // want "field TestStruct.ThreeWayConflictField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker5\\], \\[marker7\\], \\[marker9\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
 
 	// Three-way conflict with values
 	// +marker6:=value1
 	// +marker8:=value2
 	// +marker10:=value3
-	ThreeWayConflictWithValuesField string `json:"threeWayConflictWithValuesField"` // want "field ThreeWayConflictWithValuesField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker6\\], \\[marker8\\], \\[marker10\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
+	ThreeWayConflictWithValuesField string `json:"threeWayConflictWithValuesField"` // want "field TestStruct.ThreeWayConflictWithValuesField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker6\\], \\[marker8\\], \\[marker10\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
 
 	// Valid field with markers from same set in three-way conflict
 	// +marker5
@@ -55,10 +55,10 @@ type TestStruct struct {
 	// +marker8
 	// +marker9
 	// +marker10
-	ThreeWayMultipleMarkersField string `json:"threeWayMultipleMarkersField"` // want "field ThreeWayMultipleMarkersField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker5 marker6\\], \\[marker7 marker8\\], \\[marker10 marker9\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
+	ThreeWayMultipleMarkersField string `json:"threeWayMultipleMarkersField"` // want "field TestStruct.ThreeWayMultipleMarkersField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker5 marker6\\], \\[marker7 marker8\\], \\[marker10 marker9\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
 
 	// Three-way conflict with only subset of sets triggered (sets 1 and 2 only)
 	// +marker5
 	// +marker7
-	SubsetThreeWayConflictField string `json:"subsetThreeWayConflictField"` // want "field SubsetThreeWayConflictField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker5\\], \\[marker7\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
+	SubsetThreeWayConflictField string `json:"subsetThreeWayConflictField"` // want "field TestStruct.SubsetThreeWayConflictField has conflicting markers: three_way_conflict: \\{\\[marker5\\], \\[marker7\\]\\}. Three-way conflict between marker sets"
 }