Global error handler cleanup - Metrics SDK

[lalitb]

Fixes # Design discussion issue (if applicable) #

Changes

Please provide a brief description of the changes here.

Merge requirement checklist

• [ ] CONTRIBUTING guidelines followed
• [ ] Unit tests added/updated (if applicable)
• [ ] Appropriate CHANGELOG.md files updated for non-trivial, user-facing changes
• [ ] Changes in public API reviewed (if applicable)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 15.74074% with 91 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.9%. Comparing base (8bd529a) to head (115e73f).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/meter.rs	21.2%	52 Missing :warning:
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/pipeline.rs	0.0%	12 Missing :warning:
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/view.rs	8.3%	11 Missing :warning:
...-sdk/src/metrics/internal/exponential_histogram.rs	0.0%	9 Missing :warning:
...pentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/internal/aggregate.rs	0.0%	3 Missing :warning:
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/internal/mod.rs	50.0%	2 Missing :warning:
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/manual_reader.rs	0.0%	1 Missing :warning:
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/meter_provider.rs	0.0%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #2185     +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage   79.1%   78.9%   -0.3%     
=======================================
  Files        121     121             
  Lines      21171   21220     +49     
=======================================
- Hits       16760   16751      -9     
- Misses      4411    4469     +58     

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[cijothomas]

@lalitb Let us know if this is ready for another review. Unfortunately, it got some conflicts too to be resolved, hopefully simple ones.

[lalitb]

@lalitb Let us know if this is ready for another review. Unfortunately, it got some conflicts too to be resolved, hopefully simple ones.

Resolved the conflicts. Will go through the review comments now.

[cijothomas]

@lalitb @utpilla This is getting too big with large number of comments, making it even harder to keep up. Can you reduce scope so we can focus on one file/small-section-within-a-file at a time? A lot of internal logging requires reviewers to also understand the overall flow and its a lot easier to do with very targeted PR.

[lalitb]

@lalitb @utpilla This is getting too big with large number of comments, making it even harder to keep up. Can you reduce scope so we can focus on one file/small-section-within-a-file at a time? A lot of internal logging requires reviewers to also understand the overall flow and its a lot easier to do with very targeted PR.

I can try that. Can move this to draft for now, and will create further smalls along with incorporating the existing comments. Let me know if that's fine ?

[cijothomas]

@lalitb @utpilla This is getting too big with large number of comments, making it even harder to keep up. Can you reduce scope so we can focus on one file/small-section-within-a-file at a time? A lot of internal logging requires reviewers to also understand the overall flow and its a lot easier to do with very targeted PR.

I can try that. Can move this to draft for now, and will create further smalls along with incorporating the existing comments. Let me know if that's fine ?

Yes that works!

[lalitb]

closing, the PRs has been split to multiple small PRs.