fix: enable bool-compare rule from testifylint

[mmorel-35]

This fixes bool-compare rule from testifylint.

It also replaces testutil.AssertFalse and testutil.AssertTrue by assert.False and assert.True as they are identical (t.Helper() called in testify's functions)

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mmorel-35. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[mmorel-35]

/assign @wenjiaswe

[jmhbnz]

/ok-to-test

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.86%. Comparing base (448fb7e) to head (f2f8e3a).

❗ Current head f2f8e3a differs from pull request most recent head b23947b

Please upload reports for the commit b23947b to get more accurate results.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

see 24 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #18686      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.87%   68.86%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35540    35540              
==========================================
- Hits        24477    24476       -1     
- Misses       9639     9640       +1     
  Partials     1424     1424              

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 448fb7e...b23947b. Read the comment docs.

[mmorel-35]

/test pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-amd64

[jmhbnz]

LGTM - Thanks @mmorel-35

[mmorel-35]

What’s left in the process before merging ?

[jmhbnz]

What’s left in the process before merging ?

Requesting review from @ivanvc who has been involved in many linting improvements recently, primarily for awareness.

[ivanvc]

This looks great. Thanks, Matthieu. I think after merging this pull request, we can:

1. Replace testutil.AssertNil and testutil.AssertNotNil with their assert package equivalent
2. Enable nil-compare
3. Remove the stray client/pkg/testutil/assert.go, as it won't be used anymore by any test cases (technically, right now, we could delete the functions testutil.AssertTrue/testutil.AssertFalse, but I'm okay with doing this later)

@jmhbnz, should we create a parent issue? I'd like to do it only if we have contributors interested in working on this.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, ivanvc, jmhbnz, mmorel-35

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [ahrtr,jmhbnz]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[jmhbnz]

This looks great. Thanks, Matthieu. I think after merging this pull request, we can:

1. Replace `testutil.AssertNil` and `testutil.AssertNotNil` with their assert package equivalent

2. Enable `nil-compare`

3. Remove the stray `client/pkg/testutil/assert.go`, as it won't be used anymore by any test cases (technically, right now, we could delete the functions `testutil.AssertTrue`/`testutil.AssertFalse`, but I'm okay with doing this later)

@jmhbnz, should we create a parent issue? I'd like to do it only if we have contributors interested in working on this.

1 and 2 sound like reasonable next steps. An issue would be a good way to check if there is consensus for 3. Let's go ahead and merge this initial improvement.

[ivanvc]

Thanks, @jmhbnz. I missed your last reply. I think something reasonable would be to deprecate and open a pull request regarding 3. There, we can see if we have a consensus (x-posting #18689 (comment))

[ivanvc]

Link to #18719