[aws] Combine Extensions.AWS, Instrumentation.AWS, & Instrumentation.AWSLambda into a single tag

[CodeBlanch]

Changes

• Use the same tag prefix (MinVerTagPrefix) for OpenTelemetry.Extensions.AWS, OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWS, & OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWSLambda.

• Add STJ reference at 6.0.10 / 8.0.5 for OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWSLambda since it uses the source generator.

Details

@srprash @ppittle @Oberon00 @rypdal

My goal here is to resolve the last build breaks due to vulnerable STJ package versions:

OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWSLambda.csproj : error NU1903: Warning As Error: Package 'System.Text.Json' 6.0.0 has a known high severity vulnerability
OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWS.csproj : error NU1903: Warning As Error: Package 'System.Text.Json' 6.0.0 has a known high severity vulnerability

The reason this is happening is OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWS and OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWSLambda reference OpenTelemetry.Extensions.AWS through NuGet, they don't use ProjectReference.

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but it is a code smell IMO. Tightly coupled projects should be released together.

Examples:

• OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNet & OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNet.TelemetryHttpModule

• OpenTelemetry.PersistentStorage.Abstractions & OpenTelemetry.PersistentStorage.FileSystem

What this PR is doing is using the same MinVerTagPrefix for OpenTelemetry.Extensions.AWS, OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWS, & OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWSLambda so they will always be versioned and released together.

We could just put out a NuGet for OpenTelemetry.Extensions.AWS to resolve the issue but I feel this is better design and overall better for users. Less chance for mismatched versions and conflicts for the coupled projects and their dependencies.

Please approve this PR if this works for AWS group!

PS: We could version all of the AWS packages together. Might simplify the versioning/upgrade story for everything. But I only did the coupled ones here. Happy to do them all if that is something AWS group wants.

Merge requirement checklist

• CONTRIBUTING guidelines followed (license requirements, nullable enabled, static analysis, etc.)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.28%. Comparing base (71655ce) to head (2a5f80b).
Report is 531 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2203       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   73.91%   85.28%   +11.36%     
===========================================
  Files         267       35      -232     
  Lines        9615      761     -8854     
===========================================
- Hits         7107      649     -6458     
+ Misses       2508      112     -2396     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-Extensions	88.63% <ø> (?)
unittests-Extensions.AWS	83.41% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.AWS	66.66% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 278 files with indirect coverage changes

[Kielek]

LGTM. I would wait for some feedback from component owners before merge.

[ppittle]

Given our recent discussion in the SIG about release strategy, I agree this change make sense.

I'd still like to review the other AWS packages - it may yet make sense for those to release separately.

Thanks for the change and write up!