Add support for providers in components command

[ChrsMark]

Description

This PR adds support for printing config providers with the components command.

Link to tracking issue

Related to #11570

Testing

Documentation

[ChrsMark]

Sample output

./bin/otelcorecol_linux_amd64 components
buildinfo:
    command: otelcorecol
    description: Local OpenTelemetry Collector binary, testing only.
    version: 0.115.0-dev
receivers:
    - name: nop
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/receiver/nopreceiver v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Beta
        traces: Beta
    - name: otlp
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/receiver/otlpreceiver v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Stable
        traces: Stable
processors:
    - name: batch
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/processor/batchprocessor v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Beta
        traces: Beta
    - name: memory_limiter
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/processor/memorylimiterprocessor v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Beta
        traces: Beta
exporters:
    - name: debug
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/exporter/debugexporter v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Development
        metrics: Development
        traces: Development
    - name: nop
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/exporter/nopexporter v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Beta
        traces: Beta
    - name: otlp
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/exporter/otlpexporter v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Stable
        traces: Stable
    - name: otlphttp
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/exporter/otlphttpexporter v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs: Beta
        metrics: Stable
        traces: Stable
connectors:
    - name: forward
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/connector/forwardconnector v0.115.0
      stability:
        logs-to-logs: Beta
        logs-to-metrics: Undefined
        logs-to-traces: Undefined
        metrics-to-logs: Undefined
        metrics-to-metrics: Beta
        metrics-to-traces: Undefined
        traces-to-logs: Undefined
        traces-to-metrics: Undefined
        traces-to-traces: Beta
extensions:
    - name: memory_limiter
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/extension/memorylimiterextension v0.115.0
      stability:
        extension: Development
    - name: zpages
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/extension/zpagesextension v0.115.0
      stability:
        extension: Beta
providers:
    - name: env
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/confmap/provider/envprovider v1.21.0
    - name: file
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/confmap/provider/fileprovider v1.21.0
    - name: http
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/confmap/provider/httpprovider v1.21.0
    - name: https
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/confmap/provider/httpsprovider v1.21.0
    - name: yaml
      module: go.opentelemetry.io/collector/confmap/provider/yamlprovider v1.21.0

[andrzej-stencel]

@ChrsMark sorry for the delay. I would love to see this merged. Can you please merge main and run make genotelcorecol to update the provider versions in the generated main.go file?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.61%. Comparing base (6757cc7) to head (da97c18).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #11900   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.60%   91.61%           
=======================================
  Files         461      461           
  Lines       24678    24685    +7     
=======================================
+ Hits        22607    22614    +7     
  Misses       1689     1689           
  Partials      382      382           

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

[ChrsMark]

Thank's for reviewing this @andrzej-stencel! The patch is up to date now.

/cc @mx-psi

[mx-psi]

The PR in general LGTM but I don't feel like this is the best place for this field. The resolver does not really use this field. Should this be in otelcol.CollectorSettings maybe?

[evan-bradley]

Using the scheme as the name for the provider feels like it's not guaranteed to always work, I'm a bit concerned some providers may have a difference in the future even if all upstream providers have matching names and schemes.

Could we do the following instead:

1. In the builder, set up all the metadata we need given the Go module metadata. We should probably just do all the transformations we need here.
2. Loop through set.providerModules and retrieve this data directly.

What do you think?

[evan-bradley]

Thinking on it more, we should call out the scheme instead of or in addition to the module name since the scheme is the part users actually care about. So we'll need to still read from confmapProviderFactories to get the scheme.

However I still don't think we can guarantee that future providers won't have names like acmecorpsecretsprovider that read URIs with schemes like acs://corp.my/secret. We could potentially use reflection to find the module for a given provider and match them up, but I'm not sure about the best way to do this given the provider interfaces don't give a module name.

[ChrsMark]

I see! Would that make sense to extend the provider interface so as to be able to provide the package or module name?

[evan-bradley]

Unfortunately we likely can't expand the interface any further now that confmap is stable. However it looks like we can do something like this in the map inside main.go.tmpl:

{{.Name}}.NewFactory().Create(confmap.ProviderSettings{}).Scheme()

If we key on the scheme like this and have the go module as the value, I think we only need a few changes inside the main.go template.

[ChrsMark]

That works, indeed! Thank's for the suggestion!

[evan-bradley]

One last thing, should we call this scheme instead of name?