feat: use koanf instead of viper

[sysulq]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.76923% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.03%. Comparing base (0ad279d) to head (097273f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
kod.go	80.00%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #261      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.33%   86.03%   -0.30%     
==========================================
  Files          41       41              
  Lines        2729     2729              
==========================================
- Hits         2356     2348       -8     
- Misses        273      279       +6     
- Partials      100      102       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.03% <80.76%> (-0.30%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ccoVeille]

I'm unsure about the PR idea.

I mean this PR seems to get out the blue.

What are you trying to solve ?

Why using koanf instead of viper on this project ?

what could it bring ?

Thanks

Please note I'm not suspicious or sarcastic, I'm simply clueless

I'm a random Gopher, following the project

[sysulq]

@ccoVeille Thanks for you attention, I prefer to koanf with less dependencies and more stable interface for multiple/dynamic/remote config support.

And in the near future, kod just need rely on koanf's interface for configs, after supporting WithConfigProvider(p koanf.Provider) :-)

[sysulq]

FYI: https://github.com/knadh/koanf/wiki/Comparison-with-spf13-viper

[ccoVeille]

Thanks

[ccoVeille]

Did you try using @Zxilly (hi 👋) tool on your code to see the difference of size?

https://github.com/Zxilly/go-size-analyzer