chore: setup golangci-lint

[mmorel-35]

Description

Following #7974 (comment)

Using golangci-lint will provide a common config file for all already used linters.
With this config comments can be provided.

Until now revive was only applied in the main module and not in submodules.
With one tool, this behavior will be avoided.

It will also provide a simpler way to provide new linters

RELEASE NOTES: None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.12%. Comparing base (aad8a12) to head (252b7f8).
Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7994      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.13%   82.12%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         381      381              
  Lines       38542    38542              
==========================================
- Hits        31655    31653       -2     
- Misses       5575     5577       +2     
  Partials     1312     1312              

see 26 files with indirect coverage changes

[mmorel-35]

/cc @arjan-bal

[purnesh42H]

@mmorel-35 thanks for the PR. Overall it looks good with added benefit of checking submodules. I am discussing with other maintainers for any concerns.

[purnesh42H]

@mmorel-35 other maintainers have concerns regarding verifying if all the rules that are replaced are properly running the same checks. There is potentially no way of to verify without adding the problem for each and checking if they are found.

There is definitely a pro that this has integration with more linters than what we're using, so turning on new ones is easy. However, there are bunch of cons as well like it brings in a ton of dependencies, it isn't supported by the maintainer of staticcheck.

Here we are changing a bunch of things for the purpose of making revive run on submodules, but just moving the revive check up a few lines would accomplish that with a lot less churn. Would you be willing to do that instead? Thanks.