feat: new merge function

[obecny]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• New merge function for merging configs, replacing dependency on lodash.merge
• Moved from lodash only few small pieces - staying in separate file,
• full unit tests

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2484 (7a7c012) into main (ed0ba06) will decrease coverage by 0.16%.
The diff coverage is 86.04%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2484      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.23%   93.07%   -0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         137      139       +2     
  Lines        5044     5172     +128     
  Branches     1067     1110      +43     
==========================================
+ Hits         4703     4814     +111     
- Misses        341      358      +17     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...elemetry-sdk-trace-base/src/BasicTracerProvider.ts	94.44% <ø> (-0.06%)	⬇️
...kages/opentelemetry-core/src/utils/lodash.merge.ts	63.04% <63.04%> (ø)
packages/opentelemetry-core/src/utils/merge.ts	98.79% <98.79%> (ø)
...ckages/opentelemetry-sdk-metrics-base/src/Meter.ts	88.59% <0.00%> (ø)
...pentelemetry-sdk-metrics-base/src/MeterProvider.ts	88.57% <0.00%> (ø)
...emetry-core/src/platform/node/RandomIdGenerator.ts	93.75% <0.00%> (+6.25%)	⬆️

[vmarchaud]

why does lerna need to be in dev deps ?

[dyladan]

he doesn't want to have to have it installed globally. The npm scripts call lerna so if you have it in dev deps they find it correctly. If not, it looks for global.

[vmarchaud]

Yeah but i meant why does it need to be commited ? We expect it to be available globally right ?

[obecny]

If you dont have lerna locally you cant compile it. Not mentioning that the lerna we are using should be compatible with the one that is in the project. This is also missing in other packages which should be added. We should not expect user to have lerna installed globally

[vmarchaud]

Then do we need to add it to all other packages ? I would prefer to do this in another PR

[dyladan]

Looks good to me once the comment valentin made is resolved. Thanks for adding comprehensive tests.

[obecny]

@dyladan @vmarchaud ^^

[vmarchaud]

^^

My comment about lerna still stand i would prefer doing it in another PR but its not blocking

[obecny]

^^

My comment about lerna still stand i would prefer doing it in another PR but its not blocking

Seriously???, it stucked 20 days in review because of this comment ....... Without lerna you can't compile it separately it was broken during big refactoring, not even mentioning that now all packages cannot be compiled separately if you don't have lerna installed globally.

[vmarchaud]

Seriously???, it stucked 20 days in review because of this comment

You don't need to do passive/aggresive for a review comment, i asked a question and you didn't answer (i guess because of your holiday and thats fine) so don't blame me please.

Without lerna you can't compile it separately it was broken during big refactoring, not even mentioning that now all packages cannot be compiled separately if you don't have lerna installed globally.

I understood this, i just stated that it wasn't linked to the original PR so it would make more sense to make a PR to add lerna to all packages since the problem will be the same with others.