test: Added goleak to TestMain in cmd/collector/app/server package folder

[limistah]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• Part of Enable and enforce goroutine leak checks in tests #5006

Description of the changes

• Added TestMain to package folders
• Added make goleak into unit test ci

How was this change tested?

• please run make goleak

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: yarn lint and yarn test

[yurishkuro]

I spot-checked a couple packages with added goleak checks and the tests now fail with actual goleaks. The objective of the ticket was not just add the checks and break the CI, but to fix the leaks and only then add the checks,

[yurishkuro]

btw the test workflow was successful here because of a recently introduced bug -- #5057

[limistah]

I spot-checked a couple packages with added goleak checks and the tests now fail with actual goleaks. The objective of the ticket was not just add the checks and break the CI, but to fix the leaks and only then add the checks.

Cool, I'd check in the leaks.

Did a quick run on them and noticed a few of them, some were floated from vendor packages.

I might have to reduce the scope of the fix as the errors returned by the go test path/to/package returned quite a lot of them.

[yurishkuro]

I might have to reduce the scope of the fix as the errors returned by the go test path/to/package returned quite a lot of them.

this was exactly the recommendation in the ticket.

[limistah]

I might have to reduce the scope of the fix as the errors returned by the go test path/to/package returned quite a lot of them.

this was exactly the recommendation in the ticket.

Great, I added the goleak fixes for cmd/collector/app/server package.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d489e3a) 95.62% compared to head (41a9583) 95.63%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5055      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.62%   95.63%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         314      314              
  Lines       18294    18296       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        17493    17498       +5     
+ Misses        642      640       -2     
+ Partials      159      158       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cassandra-3.x	25.59% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
cassandra-4.x	25.59% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-5.x	19.86% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-6.x	19.87% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-7.x	19.99% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-8.x	20.10% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
grpc-badger	19.49% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
kafka	14.10% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
opensearch-1.x	20.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
opensearch-2.x	20.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	93.32% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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.

[github-actions]

Test Results

2 053 tests  +1   2 043 ✅ +1   1m 9s ⏱️ ±0s
  219 suites ±0      10 💤 ±0 
    1 files   ±0       0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 41a9583. ± Comparison against base commit d489e3a.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[limistah]

I ran make cover on this commit

I have updated to use require instead of assert, it now has 100% coverage

Which gave the below result for pkg/testutils/leakcheck_test.go