time-date: add rule to check for time.Date usage

[ccoVeille]

This commit introduces a new rule to check for the usage of time.Date

The rule is added to report the usage of time.Date with non-decimal literals

Here the leading zeros that seem OK, forces the value to be octal literals.

time.Date(2023, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, time.UTC)

gofumpt formats the code like this when it encounters leading zeroes.

time.Date(2023, 0o1, 0o2, 0o3, 0o4, 0o5, 0o6, time.UTC)

The rule also reports anything that is not a decimal literal. Please take a look at the testdata file.

Closes #1326

[ccoVeille]

Based on the different feedbacks I got, this PR should reconsidered.

Let's continue the discussion in the issue, where I gathered the feedbacks I got, and try to provide a replies to them

• report time.Date used with leading zeroes (so the octal notation) #1326 (comment)

[ccoVeille]

I'm closing it for now.

The time I spend on this is not a pure lost because I played with revive internals to sea with the test. I might come back later with suggestions I have for tests/until_test.go

[ccoVeille]

Based on feedback provided here by @chavacava

I resurrect this PR, address the comment made by @denisvmedia. I might discard some of them if they are in contradiction with what @chavacava said. But each of them will be reviewed and have a comment.

So for now,let's consider it's a draft again

[ccoVeille]

I applied changes:

The confidence level now varies:

• if someone uses 00-07, confidence is set to 0.5 as it's ok to use 00-07
• if someone pads with at least two zeros (00dd), confidence is set to 1 as it's a cause of bug and confusion
• otherwise the confidence level is set at 0.8 (so for things like 0o1, 1_3, 1e1 ...) as it's a strange way to use time.Date

Please let me know if these values are ok or not

[ccoVeille]

@alexandear please review again.

[ccoVeille]

I have pushed again by simplifying the logging logic

[ccoVeille]

I apparently forgot to push back my changes 😅🤦‍♂️

[ccoVeille]

@denisvmedia @alexandear @chavacava

Could you please review again?

[chavacava]

Still some markdown linter failures. I'll merge as soon as checks pass