perf(go): improve go core library test validators to improve test validation

[haseeb-mhr]

What

1. Added handling for form/Query Multipart parameters.
2. Now, the following body matcher will match response bytes instead of data object matching. These functions mainly cause the failure of test cases due to issues such as extra bytes being ignored when bytes are converted into objects, leading to failure during response matching:
   A. RawBodyMatcher
   B. KeysBodyMatcher
   C. KeysAndValuesBodyMatcher

Why

During the implementation of handling Datetime Format cases in the OAF implementation, I identified a loophole in the test validation process of go core library.
This issue affects the accuracy and reliability of the tests generated for the Go SDKs, potentially leading to incorrect validation of Go SDKs tests. It is crucial to address this issue promptly to ensure the correctness of the generated tests and the overall functionality of the Go SDKs.

Type of change

Select multiple if applicable.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause a breaking change)
• Tests (adds or updates tests)
• Documentation (adds or updates documentation)
• Refactor (style improvements, performance improvements, code refactoring)
• Revert (reverts a commit)
• CI/Build (adds or updates a script, change in external dependencies)

Dependency Change

Existing dependencies are removed.

Breaking change

No breaking change were introduced.

Testing

Existing tests are updated to test the updated implementation.

Checklist

• My code follows the coding conventions
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added new unit tests

[mrafnadeem-apimatic]

Please review the comments.

General Comments:

• How was this tested?
• I appreciate the small size of the commits
• Does byte matching accurately reflect the kind of testing we want to do? It's good for contract testing but are we not going to test unmarshalling and marshalling? What about models?
• Could we have solved some of these issues by changing api-tester?

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[mrafnadeem-apimatic]

LGTM