Enable Lint Rule: import-shadowing

[inosmeet]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• Partial fix for Enable more revive linter rules #5506

Description of the changes

• Enabled import-shadowing in revive linter.
• Changed ambiguous attribute names.

How was this change tested?

• make lint make test

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

[inosmeet]

Hey @yurishkuro!
Can you take a look? thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.48%. Comparing base (fcb6ba2) to head (59b4092).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6102      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.49%   96.48%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         352      352              
  Lines       19973    19973              
==========================================
- Hits        19273    19270       -3     
- Misses        518      520       +2     
- Partials      182      183       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger_v1	8.42% <0.00%> (ø)
badger_v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v1	14.57% <6.89%> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2	1.64% <0.00%> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v1	14.57% <6.89%> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2	1.64% <0.00%> (ø)
elasticsearch-6.x-v1	18.73% <27.58%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
elasticsearch-7.x-v1	18.80% <27.58%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-8.x-v1	18.98% <27.58%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
elasticsearch-8.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
grpc_v1	8.78% <0.00%> (ø)
grpc_v2	6.72% <0.00%> (ø)
kafka-v1	8.99% <27.58%> (ø)
kafka-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (ø)
memory_v2	1.69% <0.00%> (ø)
opensearch-1.x-v1	18.86% <27.58%> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v1	18.86% <27.58%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
opensearch-2.x-v2	1.70% <0.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
tailsampling-processor	0.48% <0.00%> (ø)
unittests	95.39% <98.26%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

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.

[yurishkuro]

I don't mind this linter, but I don't like your choice of replacement names - you are creating very verbose & hard to read names, e.g.:

-	processor processor.SpanProcessor,
-	consumer consumer.Consumer,
+	spanProcessor processor.SpanProcessor,
+	consumerInstance consumer.Consumer,

Go generally encourages the use of shorter names. It doesn't mean you have to go to p and c, but proc and cons would still be reasonably readable, much better than consumerInstance.

[yurishkuro]

Thanks

[yurishkuro]

please resolve conflicts

[yurishkuro]

Thanks