Explicitly remove remoteIDs from the connections table where appropriate

[AaronH88]

what if a lot of time elapses between timedOut and removeconnection?
timedOutconn
s.removeConnection(conn) <---- takes a long time to delete conn
during that "takes a long time" it's possible the runProtocol exited, tcp dialed a new connection, and a new runProtocol is started (as it should!).
but then once "takes a long time" occurs, we are going to call removeconnection on that conn again! not good
this is possible because of the structure locks that removeconnection has to acquire before modifying the connections array
this would cause us to be in runProtocol, but the connections array is nowmissing our tcp connection and nothing can get routed. No redialing will occur because runProtocol is running just fine. monitoringconnectionaging won't bail us out because it also no longer sees the conn

Copied from @fosterseth

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 10.00000% with 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 39.64%. Comparing base (c19fdcc) to head (7451a25).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            devel     #974      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   39.73%   39.64%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          42       42              
  Lines        6606     6614       +8     
==========================================
- Hits         2625     2622       -3     
- Misses       3784     3792       +8     
- Partials      197      200       +3     

Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/netceptor/netceptor.go	55.49% <10.00%> (-0.82%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[shanemcd]

@AaronH88 Can you update the PR description to outline what this change does and why it's needed?

[fosterseth]

seems there are more return statements we'd need to call removeconnection, e.g. https://github.com/ansible/receptor/pull/974/files#diff-23f6be7c946bcb25e244cc53843ea9dfff1ba921dfb1b2645a619c060aa6bd62R2046

I'd still prefer to do this in defer(), maybe before the if established block

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud