Kent Gruber 96c3aaef6b Use better string splitting techniques where possible (#8226) ...

## What changed?

This PR aims to avoid usage of
[`strings.Split`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#Split) where possible in
favor of better string splitting techniques, speficially:
[`strings.SplitN`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#SplitN) and
[`strings.SplitSeq`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#SplitSeq) where
appropriate.

There was also a [`strings.Fields`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#Fields)
change I made to use
[`strings.FieldsSeq`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#FieldsSeq) instead, and
another for S3 to use the [`path`](https://pkg.go.dev/path) package
instead of [`strings.Split`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#Split).

## Why?

[`strings.SplitN`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#SplitN) and
[`strings.SplitSeq`](https://pkg.go.dev/strings#SplitSeq) are often
better options in many cases, and can be _partially_ detected using
[`modernize`](https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/tools/gopls/internal/analysis/modernize):
> `stringsseq`: replace Split in "for range strings.Split(...)" by
go1.24's more efficient `SplitSeq`, or `Fields` with `FieldSeq`.

## How did you test it?
- [X] built
- [X] run locally and tested manually
- [x] covered by existing tests
- [x] added new unit test(s)
- [ ] added new functional test(s)

## Potential risks

There are lots of potentially subtle behaviors from the `strings.Split`
(and `strings.Fields`) usage that should be accounted for. If our
existing tests don't cover those subtleties, there's risk for
introducing an unintended bug. More intricate handling/parsing
previously using the `strings` package should get extra attention from
reviewers. I've attempted to break up my changes into logical commit
chunks to aid in review / help spot potentially concerning changes.

2025-08-26 13:23:40 -04:00

..

helpers_test.go

Use better string splitting techniques where possible (#8226)

2025-08-26 13:23:40 -04:00

helpers.go

Use better string splitting techniques where possible (#8226)

2025-08-26 13:23:40 -04:00