ci: Add error message format check

[fredcarle]

Relevant issue(s)

Resolves #161

Description

This PR adds a linter rule that checks for proper formatting of the error message.

Tasks

• I made sure the code is well commented, particularly hard-to-understand areas.
• I made sure the repository-held documentation is changed accordingly.
• I made sure the pull request title adheres to the conventional commit style (the subset used in the project can be found in tools/configs/chglog/config.yml).
• I made sure to discuss its limitations such as threats to validity, vulnerability to mistake and misuse, robustness to invalidation of assumptions, resource requirements, ...

How has this been tested?

make lint

Specify the platform(s) on which this was tested:

• MacOS

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #901 (28070ee) into develop (574d853) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 12.37%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #901   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    59.79%   59.79%           
========================================
  Files          156      156           
  Lines        17415    17415           
========================================
  Hits         10414    10414           
  Misses        6065     6065           
  Partials       936      936           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
client/dockey.go	51.16% <0.00%> (ø)
client/document.go	64.25% <0.00%> (ø)
client/errors.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
core/crdt/composite.go	76.05% <0.00%> (ø)
core/crdt/lwwreg.go	74.39% <0.00%> (ø)
core/key.go	85.24% <0.00%> (ø)
db/base/collection_keys.go	90.90% <0.00%> (ø)
db/collection_delete.go	29.41% <0.00%> (ø)
db/collection_update.go	54.93% <0.00%> (ø)
db/db.go	68.33% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 30 more

[AndrewSisley]

question: The linter chosen seems fairly ineffective and seems to have allowed many errors to remain capitalised. Does it only check edited lines? If not is there perhaps a better linter we can use?

[orpheuslummis]

What is also strange is that a run with a different linter, staticcheck -checks ST1005 ./..., reports everything, while we clearly do see a lot of remaining capitalized errors.

[fredcarle]

question: The linter chosen seems fairly ineffective and seems to have allowed many errors to remain capitalised. Does it only check edited lines? If not is there perhaps a better linter we can use?

I'll see if I missed something.

[fredcarle]

I did a few tests and it seems that the linters really suck when not using the stdlib errors package. So as an alternative I opted to check the string format of the first argument of our error creation functions. It seems to work relatively well.

[fredcarle]

@AndrewSisley are you ok with the latest changes?

[AndrewSisley]

@AndrewSisley are you ok with the latest changes?

Looks good to me! Cheers for finding a better linter for this :)

[orpheuslummis]

LGTM