Fix revive identified linter issues: var-declaration, indent-error-flow, increment-decrement, superfluous-else

[janardhanvissa]

Partially addresses #7444

Fixed below linter issues
- 6 var-declaration
- 3 indent-error-flow
- 2 increment-decrement
- 1 superfluous-else

RELEASE NOTES: None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.93%. Comparing base (ec9dff7) to head (fb38c64).
Report is 46 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
profiling/cmd/remote.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7528      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.56%   81.93%   +0.36%     
==========================================
  Files         354      360       +6     
  Lines       27076    27535     +459     
==========================================
+ Hits        22085    22560     +475     
+ Misses       3802     3782      -20     
- Partials     1189     1193       +4     

Files	Coverage Δ
internal/channelz/funcs.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
internal/transport/http2_client.go	92.09% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
internal/transport/http_util.go	93.30% <ø> (+6.89%)	⬆️
profiling/cmd/remote.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 73 files with indirect coverage changes

[purnesh42H]

lgtm

[arvindbr8]

Thanks for taking a stab at this @janardhanvissa -- However I would prefer if these fixes also have an effect in our CI. I have #7543 in review.

Once we merge it, we can then re-enable the checks which are fixed in this PR

[arvindbr8]

I spoke to @purnesh42H offline and seems like @janardhanvissa is working on all the remaining fixes (expect for unused-parameters) at the moment. Seems like it's not worth doing #7543.

I would have preferred if there were some evidence that these checks are actually been fixed as this PR does not include any changes to the CI

I'm okay to iterate over this

[purnesh42H]

I spoke to @purnesh42H offline and seems like @janardhanvissa is working on all the remaining fixes (expect for unused-parameters) at the moment. Seems like it's not worth doing #7543.

I would have preferred if there were some evidence that these checks are actually been fixed as this PR does not include any changes to the CI

I'm okay to iterate over this

Thanks Arvind. Yeah we can rely on check annotations in the PR /files view. Even though they are not enforced in the PR checks, they do appear there as warnings. So, If they are not appearing anymore in the changed files then we can conclude they are fixed.