Resolves #151: mark incorrect usages of Succeed()

[navijation]

Description

Fixes #151. Add a new, partially suppressible error set for calls to Succeed.

Whenever the actual argument is not a single error value for synchronous calls, or not a function returning a single error value for asynchronous calls, this creates a non-suppressible error.

Whenever the actual argument is anything but a function call, e.g. Expect(err).To(Succeed()), this creates a suppressible error that can be suppressed with command line flags or comment directives, and suggests a replacement to Expect(err).To(HaveOccurred()).

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

• [x] Added test case and related test data
  • testdata/src/a/succeed/succeed.go for test cases in strict config
  • testdata/src/a/succeedconfig/succeedconfig.go for test cases with suppressed config
  • "Succeed" and ""test the suppress-succeed-assertion flag"" test cases in analyzer_test.go
• [x] Update the functional test
  • Most counts make sense (existing +24 or +16) except one or two, but most likely not a real bug but rather "conflict" between two lint rules

Checklist:

• [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
• [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [x] My changes generate no new warnings
• [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
• [x] I ran golangci-lint

@nunnatsa

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9542355837

Details

• 6 of 8 (75.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 64.545%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
types/config.go	5	7	71.43%
<!--	Total:	6	8	75.0%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 9516146313:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	213
Relevant Lines:	330

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9639348734

Details

• 7 of 9 (77.78%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 64.653%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
types/config.go	5	7	71.43%
<!--	Total:	7	9	77.78%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 9516146313:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	214
Relevant Lines:	331

---

💛 - Coveralls

[nunnatsa]

@navijation - would you mind to change the commits, so they will include only changes from main, and not from each other? For example, if a commit added some code that was later modified or removed, please use the final version of the change in the commit. we have now 14 commits in this PR, and I think we can do that with 4-5 commits.

For a specific example, the "fix bug" commit should be rebased with the commit that added the code before the fix.

[navijation]

@nunnatsa I've rebased as 4 commits to the best of my ability. Although I would probably recommend squash merging this PR since the boundaries are a little blurry between each commit after merging them.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9739311110

Details

• 7 of 9 (77.78%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 64.653%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
types/config.go	5	7	71.43%
<!--	Total:	7	9	77.78%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 9516146313:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	214
Relevant Lines:	331

---

💛 - Coveralls