chore(linters): Remove blank identifiers and errors which are not needed to be handled

[zak-pawel]

Summary

Enabled errcheck linter has default exclusion list that looks like this today:

	// bytes
	"(*bytes.Buffer).Write",
	"(*bytes.Buffer).WriteByte",
	"(*bytes.Buffer).WriteRune",
	"(*bytes.Buffer).WriteString",

	// fmt
	"fmt.Print",
	"fmt.Printf",
	"fmt.Println",
	"fmt.Fprint(*bytes.Buffer)",
	"fmt.Fprintf(*bytes.Buffer)",
	"fmt.Fprintln(*bytes.Buffer)",
	"fmt.Fprint(*strings.Builder)",
	"fmt.Fprintf(*strings.Builder)",
	"fmt.Fprintln(*strings.Builder)",
	"fmt.Fprint(os.Stderr)",
	"fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr)",
	"fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr)",

	// io
	"(*io.PipeReader).CloseWithError",
	"(*io.PipeWriter).CloseWithError",

	// math/rand
	"math/rand.Read",
	"(*math/rand.Rand).Read",

	// strings
	"(*strings.Builder).Write",
	"(*strings.Builder).WriteByte",
	"(*strings.Builder).WriteRune",
	"(*strings.Builder).WriteString",

	// hash
	"(hash.Hash).Write",

Our .golangci-lint expands it with the following functions:

     "(*hash/maphash.Hash).Write"
     "(*hash/maphash.Hash).WriteByte"
     "(*hash/maphash.Hash).WriteString"

I've reviewed all (hopefully) uses of these functions in the Telegraf code and removed blank identifiers that masked the reluctance to handle errors returned by above functions.
If any of these functions returned an error that was handled, I removed the handling of that error.

Checklist

• No AI generated code was used in this PR

Related issues

[srebhan]

Awesome @zak-pawel! Thanks for looking into this!

[powersj]

@zak-pawel should there be an update to the .golangci file to enable errcheck? Or was this the first in a series of PRs?

[zak-pawel]

should there be an update to the .golangci file to enable errcheck?

@powersj errcheck has been active for a long time.

[powersj]

should there be an update to the .golangci file to enable errcheck?

@powersj errcheck has been active for a long time.

ok, and how do we prevent these in the future? Does check-blank: true need to be turned on as well?

[zak-pawel]

Does check-blank: true need to be turned on as well?

@powersj We may do it (as a part of different PR), but some of the findings (which will need to be addressed in non-test code) are not trivial to fix.

[powersj]

I'm going to approve and merge, but not close #13013 until we have a way to ensure additional blank identifiers are added to the code base.