refactor: use errors.New to replace fmt.Errorf with no parameters

[ChengenH]

No description provided.

[weiihann]

LGTM, thanks for the contribution!

[ChengenH]

LGTM, thanks for the contribution!

Thank you for the review!

[derrix060]

Can you please explain why the changes (in your commit message)? Why is it better to use errors.New instead of fmt.Errorf? Specially because I can see that on the files you added it, the fmt package is still being imported, so not much gain there.

If it's just a linting thing, then please create a linting rule to avoid people using fmt.Errorf in the future when errors.New would be prefered, otherwise one would need to create this PR again to fix the few new instances

[ChengenH]

Can you please explain why the changes (in your commit message)? Why is it better to use errors.New instead of fmt.Errorf? Specially because I can see that on the files you added it, the fmt package is still being imported, so not much gain there.

If it's just a linting thing, then please create a linting rule to avoid people using fmt.Errorf in the future when errors.New would be prefered, otherwise one would need to create this PR again to fix the few new instances

errors.New has better performance, although slightly, since it does not involve the overhead of formatting the string. It is also more concise when there are no formatting arguments.
this will not affect performance and readability too much.

[ChengenH]

Can you please explain why the changes (in your commit message)? Why is it better to use errors.New instead of fmt.Errorf? Specially because I can see that on the files you added it, the fmt package is still being imported, so not much gain there.

If it's just a linting thing, then please create a linting rule to avoid people using fmt.Errorf in the future when errors.New would be prefered, otherwise one would need to create this PR again to fix the few new instances

Additionally, I noticed that in most projects I read, errors without formatting parameters are typically handled using errors.New.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 74.45%. Comparing base (a9d11d4) to head (5b0c1b8).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cmd/juno/dbcmd.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
core/trie/trie.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
rpc/l1.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2320      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   74.41%   74.45%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         109      109              
  Lines       11493    11493              
==========================================
+ Hits         8552     8557       +5     
+ Misses       2277     2273       -4     
+ Partials      664      663       -1     

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

[kirugan]

@ChengenH please format p2p/starknet/iterator.go file - linter found errors in this file (you can just run make format for that)

implementing a static check might be too hard for this PR