refactor: using require instead of revert where possible

[srdtrk]

Description

closes: #7

---

Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.

• Linked to GitHub issue with discussion and accepted design, OR link to spec that describes this work.
• Wrote unit and integration tests.
• Added relevant natspec and godoc comments.
• Provide a conventional commit message to follow the repository standards.
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the GitHub PR explorer.
• Review SonarCloud Report in the comment section below once CI passes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.43%. Comparing base (2de017c) to head (0000000).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/ICS26Router.sol	12.50%	0 Missing and 14 partials ⚠️
src/utils/ICS20Lib.sol	22.22%	0 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
src/utils/IBCStore.sol	20.00%	0 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
src/ICS02Client.sol	0.00%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
src/ICS20Transfer.sol	83.33%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/utils/ICS24Host.sol	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #107       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   98.62%   84.43%   -14.20%     
===========================================
  Files          12       12               
  Lines         364      379       +15     
  Branches       11       67       +56     
===========================================
- Hits          359      320       -39     
- Misses          5       25       +20     
- Partials        0       34       +34     

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

[srdtrk]

makes more logical sense for this to be at the end. This event should probably be removed on another issue to clean up unnecessary events

[gjermundgaraba]

Yes, I added an issue for implementing spec events, and specified in that issue that we should clean up events all over the place at the same time: #108

[gjermundgaraba]

Very nice! I very much like this syntax better. Mostly reads a lot better, which I love :D

LGTM!

[gjermundgaraba]

Yeah, this makes more sense

[gjermundgaraba]

I understand why this one is necessary right now, but I created an issue to re-introduce this one as soon as this is fixed in solhint: #109