Encode arrays correctly in query params.

[noelzubin]

Closes #1713

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1754 (d0508a1) into master (cfedc92) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1754      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.51%   71.45%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         178      178              
  Lines       13775    13780       +5     
==========================================
- Hits         9851     9847       -4     
- Misses       3312     3321       +9     
  Partials      612      612              

Flag	Coverage Δ
ubuntu	71.42% <50.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
windows	70.00% <50.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
js/modules/k6/http/request.go	79.29% <50.00%> (-0.71%)	⬇️
core/engine.go	90.95% <0.00%> (-2.02%)	⬇️
stats/cloud/collector.go	79.81% <0.00%> (-0.64%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cfedc92...d0508a1. Read the comment docs.

[na--]

Thanks for making this PR. I guess picking to reuse the same key for all slice values (instead of key[] or key.<N> or any other convention) is better than the current behavior (#1713, #878)...

Can you please add some tests in your PR? And also you probably don't need reflection, you should be able to get by with a simple type assertion that v is []interface{}?

[noelzubin]

@na-- I dont think go allows type assertion on []interface{}, Although it allows type assertions on []string though.

[na--]

Ah, yeah, fair enough... 🤦‍♂️ Though the rest of my request still stands - please add some tests, and also you probably don't need to check for reflect.Array in the switch, which should take care of the lint error as well.

[imiric]

@noelzubin Thanks for the PR. Are you available to finish it? We'd like to have this merged for v0.33.0. I think it would just need a test and maybe disabling the exhaustive linter if we can't avoid the reflection.

If we don't hear from you by sometime next week or if you're not available, that's OK too, and we can proceed to do the leftover changes.

[imiric]

Fixed in #2060.

Thanks for your contribution @noelzubin! We'll make sure to thank you in the release notes :)