Linter fixes for the crypto and encoding k6 modules

[olegbespalov]

What?

This PR fixes ~105 linter issues in js/k6/crypto and js/k6/encoding packages.

It's recommended to start looking by commits.

Why?

As we agreed, we aim to fix most of the linter issues.

Part of #769

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have added tests for my changes.
• I have run linter locally (make lint), and all checks pass.
• I have run tests locally (make tests), and all tests pass.
• I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.

Related PR(s)/Issue(s)

[olegbespalov]

Converted to a draft for data race investigation 🤔

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (a087d42) 73.23% compared to head (630412a) 73.11%.

❗ Current head 630412a differs from pull request most recent head 7e0a8ec. Consider uploading reports for the commit 7e0a8ec to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
js/modules/k6/crypto/crypto.go	84.61%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3460      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.23%   73.11%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         267      265       -2     
  Lines       20083    20064      -19     
==========================================
- Hits        14707    14670      -37     
- Misses       4463     4475      +12     
- Partials      913      919       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
ubuntu	73.11% <84.61%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
windows	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[olegbespalov]

The latest commit does the trick and fixes the data race. However, I prefer to drop a RandomBytesFailure test case since, in my opinion, it's not a big value to have it 🤷 What do you think?

[oleiade]

🚀

I agree with you, the RandomBytesFailure does not look obviously useful to me, and I'd be happy with dropping it indeed 👍🏻

[codebien]

I prefer to drop a RandomBytesFailure test case since, in my opinion, it's not a big value to have it

I don't have a strong opinion but I found it useful, it is testing that in case of an error returned from the reader then the randomBytes function returns an error. Error handling, in the end, is business logic for the randomBytes func.