Not sure if we wanna merge it as it might generate way too many conflicts, but this should help us add a linter in CI. If we are good, I'll add something that can do lints for this in a follow up PR.
Super hacky, but this fix was created using `while true ; do tree-grepper -q go '(argument_list "," @nope .)' | tail -n1| awk -F: "{print \$1,\"+\"\$2\" -c ':norm \$xJZZ'\"}" | xargs vim ; done`.
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [ ] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
<!--- Please check the type of change your PR introduces: --->
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [ ] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Issue(s)
<!-- Can reference multiple issues. Use one of the following "magic words" - "closes, fixes" to auto-close the Github issue. -->
* https://github.com/alcionai/corso/issues/3654
#### Test Plan
<!-- How will this be tested prior to merging.-->
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [ ] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
Create a struct that handles:
* initialization from existing kopia config info
* in-memory updates to config info
* detecting which config info structs from kopia need updated
* returning kopia config info structs
Overall, this allows us to isolate the logic for
calculating the new retention configuration info
in kopia
Viewing by commit may help.
First commit just splits up existing code, moving it into
either conn.go (will be used later) or retention/opts.go.
Subsequent commits switch to using a struct, add tests,
and fixup existing logic
---
#### Does this PR need a docs update or release note?
- [ ] ✅ Yes, it's included
- [ ] 🕐 Yes, but in a later PR
- [x] ⛔ No
#### Type of change
- [ ] 🌻 Feature
- [ ] 🐛 Bugfix
- [ ] 🗺️ Documentation
- [ ] 🤖 Supportability/Tests
- [ ] 💻 CI/Deployment
- [x] 🧹 Tech Debt/Cleanup
#### Test Plan
- [ ] 💪 Manual
- [x] ⚡ Unit test
- [ ] 💚 E2E
