chore: Record subscriber usage metric

[jsumners-nr]

This PR resolves #3575.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.78673% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.12%. Comparing base (bc1faf3) to head (48a1c71).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/subscribers/resolve-package-version.js	88.09%	10 Missing ⚠️
lib/subscribers/dc-base.js	97.87%	1 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (bc1faf3) and HEAD (48a1c71). Click for more details.

HEAD has 4 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (bc1faf3)	HEAD (48a1c71)
unit-tests-22.x	1	0
integration-tests-esm-22.x	1	0
integration-tests-cjs-22.x	1	0
versioned-tests-22.x	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3626       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   97.84%   81.12%   -16.72%     
===========================================
  Files         440      429       -11     
  Lines       57644    56363     -1281     
  Branches        1        1               
===========================================
- Hits        56404    45727    -10677     
- Misses       1240    10636     +9396     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests-cjs-22.x	?
integration-tests-esm-20.x	52.61% <54.50%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
integration-tests-esm-22.x	?
unit-tests-22.x	?
versioned-tests-20.x	81.02% <94.78%> (?)
versioned-tests-22.x	?

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[bizob2828]

a coupe questions/comments. You're going to also have to remove the tracking of OnRequire metrics for subscribers. This is done here. Also you'll have a bunch of failing versioned tests as we have 1 per library to assert the previous OnRequire metrics, those will need to be updated and in all cases, rewritten as the previous metrics got incremented when a package was required. Now they aren't incremented until a method on the package is used

[bizob2828]

we have a very similar function in lib/util/get-package-version.js. you could pass off to use that for consistency after you get the base dir. If not, I'd still recommend setting the version to process.version if package.json cannot be found for consistency with that

[jsumners-nr]

There's a rather big difference between the implementations. The function in this PR:

1. Starts from the directory that the module specifier resolves to. So for require('foo'), it'll start at /path/to/app/node_modules/foo/.
2. If a manifest cannot be found there, it traverses up the tree one directory
3. Repeat looking for a manifest
4. Repeat until we hit the app root / do not find a manifest

The function in lib/util/ simply looks in the provided directory and returns the Node.js version if a manifest is not found there.

Do you think we will ever have a subscriber that targets a specifier like moduleName/sub/module.js that would mean we need the tree traversal algorithm in this PR's version?

[jsumners-nr]

@bizob2828 this implementation has changed a bit. Please re-review it.

[bizob2828]

very close. a few comments. Nice creativity on trying to obtain the appropriate path of the module

[bizob2828]

great work on this one 🚢 🇮🇹 . Also, don't forget to update angler with all the lovely updates for this one