chore: replace usages of ioutil

[donuts-are-good]

ioutil is not used anymore, in favor of io or os. in this case, io is a drop in replacement for ioutil.

[github-actions]

Congratulations on opening your first pull request! We'll get back to you as soon as possible. In the meantime, please make sure you've updated the documentation to reflect your changes and have added test automation as needed. Thanks! 🙏🏼

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (284066a) 69.23% compared to head (0a57f46) 69.23%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1792   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.23%   69.23%           
=======================================
  Files          26       26           
  Lines        2467     2467           
=======================================
  Hits         1708     1708           
  Misses        661      661           
  Partials       98       98           

Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/container/client.go	50.12% <0.00%> (ø)

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

[donuts-are-good]

I'm happy to help get this merged. Please advise what is needed.

[piksel]

Hello! Sorry, I have been a bit busy. The complaint is about how one of the changed lines has no test coverage, but this just because it had no coverage before. The PR is about replacing a call to a deprecated function with the non-deprecated version, so adding tests for the functionality might be a bit out of scope. Ideally you could add a test that "proves" that the new function does the same as before, but since it's just a rename/package move, that shouldn't be necessary.

[donuts-are-good]

Hello! Sorry, I have been a bit busy. The complaint is about how one of the changed lines has no test coverage, but this just because it had no coverage before. The PR is about replacing a call to a deprecated function with the non-deprecated version, so adding tests for the functionality might be a bit out of scope. Ideally you could add a test that "proves" that the new function does the same as before, but since it's just a rename/package move, that shouldn't be necessary.

Awesome thanks! that's reassuring :) Is there anything else that's needed before this is merged or should I sit tight and wait?

[donuts-are-good]

Thanks :)