Remove insights_core_gpg_check from worker config

[andywaltlova]

Fixes: #103

• Improve logging
• Fix or workaround
  • Workaround would be to remove gpg verification option, the problem is present only when --no-gpg option is specified but we still want to verify yaml

🤔 Does it make sense to allow insights_gpg_check: false and verify_yaml: true, if we don't verify insights-client authenticity how can we trust verification results?

But it seems that the playbook worker does the same (I mean that is why I wrote it same in our worker), why..

the problematic exception in insight-core is here (log from worker can be seen in the #103)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (809a01a) 65.34% compared to head (ca7c536) 64.58%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #104      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   65.34%   64.58%   -0.76%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         352      336      -16     
==========================================
- Hits          230      217      -13     
+ Misses        101       99       -2     
+ Partials       21       20       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
go-1.19	64.58% <100.00%> (-0.76%)	⬇️
go-1.20	64.58% <100.00%> (-0.76%)	⬇️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
src/runner.go	76.25% <100.00%> (+0.42%)	⬆️
src/util.go	72.44% <ø> (-1.34%)	⬇️

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

[andywaltlova]

Talked it with other folks, seems like it was only for dev/qa purposes in playbook worker and it's not used in any other cases, in our worker we did not use it at all (not even for dev purposes). Imho best option is to remove it altogether.

[r0x0d]

🤔 Does it make sense to allow insights_gpg_check: false and verify_yaml: true, if we don't verify insights-client authenticity how can we trust verification results?

I think it would make things a bit more complicated, I like the simplicity we have right now to rely only on verify_yaml, which gives devs/qa the ability to skip the validation if necessary without having to change the code itself.

And for the user, I don't expect them using this option at all.