[otlp] Workaround DI containers which create unregistered services

[CodeBlanch]

Fixes #5537
Fixes #5803

Changes

• Prevent UseOtlpExporterRegistration from being instantiated without a registration when using Unity or Grace DI containers

Merge requirement checklist

• CONTRIBUTING guidelines followed (license requirements, nullable enabled, static analysis, etc.)
• Appropriate CHANGELOG.md files updated for non-trivial changes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.23%. Comparing base (6250307) to head (8c3a151).
Report is 300 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5808      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.38%   86.23%   +2.84%     
==========================================
  Files         297      257      -40     
  Lines       12531    11150    -1381     
==========================================
- Hits        10449     9615     -834     
+ Misses       2082     1535     -547     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	?
unittests-Project-Experimental	86.21% <100.00%> (?)
unittests-Project-Stable	86.14% <100.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...enTelemetryProtocol/Builder/OtlpExporterBuilder.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...tryProtocol/Builder/UseOtlpExporterRegistration.cs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 212 files with indirect coverage changes

[Kielek]

LGTM.
Do you think that it is worth to add some additional DI to our coverage?

[reyang]

Do you think that it is worth to add some additional DI to our coverage?

+1, if this is a scenario we would support, a test case is needed.

[CodeBlanch]

Do you think that it is worth to add some additional DI to our coverage?

I commented about that a bit on here and we discussed somewhat on the SIG this week. Short answer is I feel like we should do something but I don't know what that something is 🤣 I don't feel a test in OtlpExporter project would be super useful. Because any dev at any time in this repo or contrib who introduces a serviceProvider.GetService(...) or serviceProvider.GetServices(...) call may run into this again. We would need coverage over everything using all known containers which exist or may exist in the future. Yuck!

I just spun up this issue in runtime to see if there might be a better way to do it or if some other safe way could be added: dotnet/runtime#107153

[secovel]

What version can I expect to see this fix in? We need to get off 1.7.0 due to some vulnerability reports.