Transform expand provider to converter

[bogdandrutu]

Signed-off-by: Bogdan Drutu [email protected]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4636 (0782885) into main (60e0cf6) will increase coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4636      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.36%   90.45%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         181      181              
  Lines       10598    10598              
==========================================
+ Hits         9577     9586       +9     
+ Misses        797      788       -9     
  Partials      224      224              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
service/config_provider.go	89.28% <100.00%> (+0.39%)	⬆️
service/internal/configprovider/default.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
service/internal/configprovider/expand.go	70.00% <100.00%> (-8.19%)	⬇️
service/servicetest/configprovider.go	64.70% <100.00%> (ø)
obsreport/obsreport_exporter.go	94.44% <0.00%> (+0.44%)	⬆️
obsreport/obsreporttest/obsreporttest.go	95.58% <0.00%> (+1.10%)	⬆️
receiver/otlpreceiver/otlp.go	81.33% <0.00%> (+5.33%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 60e0cf6...0782885. Read the comment docs.

[Aneurysm9]

#4600 is going to break things for downstream distributions and we need to pause on digging a deeper hole.

[bogdandrutu]

@Aneurysm9 if still unclear, see the next PR #4637. Also as commented in the #4600 it is not as bad as you think, and with #4637 you will not miss anything.

[Aneurysm9]

Perhaps we should add this to the discussion on #4630. With all of the fragmented PRs happening in this space with zero communication of plan or desired end-state, I have no idea what works and what doesn't. I will review this in the morning when I return to work.

[bogdandrutu]

@Aneurysm9 this is not a component FYI, so your argument does not stand for that issue.

[bogdandrutu]

@Aneurysm9 anything else blocking this or can be merged?

I don't approve of the manner in which these changes were made, but there seems to be a plan for functional equivalence and thus I will no longer block this PR.