config: add support for certificate configuration

[codeboten]

Part of #6351

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.9%. Comparing base (0c0b385) to head (a6fed29).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
config/v0.3.0/config.go	75.0%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #6376   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   67.8%   67.9%           
=====================================
  Files        200     200           
  Lines      16641   16689   +48     
=====================================
+ Hits       11297   11342   +45     
- Misses      4999    5001    +2     
- Partials     345     346    +1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
config/v0.3.0/log.go	95.3% <100.0%> (+0.4%)	⬆️
config/v0.3.0/metric.go	85.8% <100.0%> (+0.4%)	⬆️
config/v0.3.0/trace.go	97.3% <100.0%> (+0.2%)	⬆️
config/v0.3.0/config.go	84.4% <75.0%> (-1.8%)	⬇️

[codeboten]

Not sure if the test failure is related to my change, i don't think so but i could be wrong:

--- FAIL: TestInstrumentation (13.42s)
    instrgen_test.go:87: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/runner/work/opentelemetry-go-contrib/opentelemetry-go-contrib/instrgen/driver/instrgen_test.go:87
        	Error:      	Should be true
        	Test:       	TestInstrumentation
        	Messages:   	testdata/interface/app/impl.go_pass_tracing
    instrgen_test.go:87: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/runner/work/opentelemetry-go-contrib/opentelemetry-go-contrib/instrgen/driver/instrgen_test.go:87
        	Error:      	Should be true
        	Test:       	TestInstrumentation
        	Messages:   	testdata/interface/main.go_pass_tracing

[mattsains]

I'm not sure if you consider HTTP (as opposed to GRPC) config to be in scope for this PR, but the otlpHTTPLogExporter has a similar problem - http in this context can also mean https

[mattsains]

I'm curious about why this was put here and not the outer scope on line 190/191 as a sibling of if otlp.Config.Compression != nil { ? the other if statements in the inner block pertain to the result of url.ParseRequestURI, so if you think it's better to put otlpConfig checks in this block, it would be good to understand when to add them here and when to add them in the outer scope

[codeboten]

i ended up moving the code after thinking about this further. originally i thought it made sense to only have it in the case where an endpoint was configured, but after rethinking through it i moved it out at the same level as compression and the other parameters. figured if there was a problem with the cert config it would make sense to surface it regardless of what the endpoint configuration is

[codeboten]

I'm not sure if you consider HTTP (as opposed to GRPC) config to be in scope for this PR, but the otlpHTTPLogExporter has a similar problem - http in this context can also mean https

I was planning on submitting a separate PR for the http exporter

[mattsains]

I'm not sure if you consider HTTP (as opposed to GRPC) config to be in scope for this PR, but the otlpHTTPLogExporter has a similar problem - http in this context can also mean https

I was planning on submitting a separate PR for the http exporter

I'll do the rest of the changes if you're okay with that. Some of the other fields require overwriting this change anyway

[mattsains]

I created #6378 which is based on this PR

[codeboten]

Ah I missed your comment, i ended up implementing the http certificate field in this same PR

[codeboten]

@dmathieu can this be merged? it will unblock #6378

[dmathieu]

We need a second approval to merge.