Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.85057% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 95.10%. Comparing base (fa286b4) to head (e2e9234).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5862      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.02%   95.10%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         315      315              
  Lines        8225     8396     +171     
  Branches     1666     1727      +61     
==========================================
+ Hits         7816     7985     +169     
- Misses        409      411       +2     

Hey! Sorry for the late review. So long story short, the Specification defines:

1. Environment Variables configuration (which this PR adds support for).
2. File based configuration (which is what covers ComponentProvider instances, which are defined mostly for custom components, e.g. MyCustomExporter). This configuration mode explicitly ignores the 1) section, although adding general env var interpolation in order to partially support migration.

As an example, in the Java ecosystem 1) and 2) exist as separate packages, although 1) uses 2) if it is present at runtime (if it detects the proper env var setting the configuration file). But that's mostly an implementation detail and is up to you to define them in the same or in separate packages, and it is your decision what to do organization wise.

The PR looks fine otherwise! Let me know if this clarifies a little bit the current situation.

Thank you for your input @carlosalberto! I talked with the group defining the spec for the config and we discussed how my implementation differs from the Java (two places vs having everything in one), and they actually said they like the way I'm doing and wished the others were doing it, so I agree is a matter of implementation, and the way I'm doing is still aligned with the specs

I'm trying to break down the PRs as most as possible to make it easier for review, so this one is still preparing things, are handling env variables, there is another one that starts the actual parsing of a config file, that you can find here #5875

Symbolic approval, as I'm not an approver (went through the validation code and it all looks good).