refactor(instr-graphql): use exported strings for attributes

[david-luna]

trafficstars

Which problem is this PR solving?

• Updates #2025

Short description of the changes

• Update @opentelemetry/semantic-conventions to ^1.22
• Replace SemanticAttributes.* with exported strings SEMATTRS_* in test files

Note: I did not add the "semantic conventions" section in the readme file since this instrumentation is using it only in tests but not for span attribs

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 90.12%. Comparing base (dfb2dff) to head (00af2fb). Report is 112 commits behind head on main.

:exclamation: Current head 00af2fb differs from pull request most recent head cd0ebd6. Consider uploading reports for the commit cd0ebd6 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2156      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.97%   90.12%   -0.86%     
==========================================
  Files         146      142       -4     
  Lines        7492     6995     -497     
  Branches     1502     1475      -27     
==========================================
- Hits         6816     6304     -512     
- Misses        676      691      +15     

see 41 files with indirect coverage changes

[david-luna]

LGTM

Should we add some note in the README about this package not implementing any semantic convention at the moment?

I thought the absence of the section in the README was enough but I based on your comment I guess it would be better that all packages have a section about semconv

[blumamir]

LGTM Should we add some note in the README about this package not implementing any semantic convention at the moment?

I thought the absence of the section in the README was enough but I based on your comment I guess it would be better that all packages have a section about semconv

That's my personal opinion 😄 Feel free to add one or resolve if you prefer the READMEs not to state it in this case

[JamieDanielson]

LGTM Should we add some note in the README about this package not implementing any semantic convention at the moment?

I thought the absence of the section in the README was enough but I based on your comment I guess it would be better that all packages have a section about semconv

That's my personal opinion 😄 Feel free to add one or resolve if you prefer the READMEs not to state it in this case

Oh interesting! It looks like graphql semantic conventions do exist, and were recently added to the registry in semantic-conventions repo, though do not appear to exist in the schema itself yet unless I am missing it.

Also seeing there was an issue opened (closed for stale) referencing unexpected attributes. So this does seem like something that we explicitly should state that we are not using semantic conventions here for graphql attributes... and a new issue should perhaps be opened to review that. I'm not clear on whether this would be included in the new generated semantic conventions if it doesn't exist in the schema yaml files, but it is something that appears to have expected conventions at this point.

[david-luna]

@JamieDanielson I've added your suggestion. Thanks :)