chore: enable more rules from go-critic

[mmorel-35]

Which problem is this PR solving?

Description of the changes

• Enable more rules from go-critic

How was this change tested?

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: npm run lint and npm run test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.77419% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 96.44%. Comparing base (a5de984) to head (8c2fd3c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...nal/sampling/samplingstrategy/adaptive/provider.go	75.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
internal/storage/v1/memory/memory.go	88.88%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7434   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.44%   96.44%           
=======================================
  Files         377      377           
  Lines       23090    23090           
=======================================
  Hits        22269    22269           
  Misses        622      622           
  Partials      199      199           

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger_v1	9.02% <5.26%> (ø)
badger_v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v1-manual	11.68% <19.29%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2-auto	1.69% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2-manual	1.69% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v1-manual	11.68% <19.29%> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2-auto	1.69% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2-manual	1.69% <0.00%> (ø)
elasticsearch-6.x-v1	16.58% <1.75%> (ø)
elasticsearch-7.x-v1	16.63% <1.75%> (ø)
elasticsearch-8.x-v1	16.77% <1.75%> (ø)
elasticsearch-8.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
elasticsearch-9.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
grpc_v1	10.21% <28.07%> (ø)
grpc_v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
kafka-3.x-v1	9.68% <14.03%> (ø)
kafka-3.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
memory_v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
opensearch-1.x-v1	16.67% <1.75%> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v1	16.67% <1.75%> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
opensearch-3.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
query	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
tailsampling-processor	0.47% <0.00%> (ø)
unittests	95.43% <96.77%> (ø)

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

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[yurishkuro]

I think this is a bad linter and I would not want to enable it. (a string, b string, ...) is A LOT easier to read than dropping repeated types. With explicit types it's obvious, with combined types I need to scan more of the string to figure out the types, and the use of commas isn't helping.