gotracer: set trace context in shared map for http and other protocols

[mmat11]

• set trace context in shared map for http and other protocols
• refactor go probes with gotracer/maps/ and gotracer/types/
• remove unused hpack.h

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 43.75%. Comparing base (4d58815) to head (a4c2d78).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1370   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   43.75%   43.75%           
=======================================
  Files         310      310           
  Lines       33772    33772           
=======================================
  Hits        14777    14777           
  Misses      18044    18044           
  Partials      951      951           

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-test	21.58% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration-test-arm	0.00% <ø> (ø)
integration-test-vm-x86_64-5.15.152	0.00% <ø> (ø)
integration-test-vm-x86_64-6.10.6	0.00% <ø> (ø)
k8s-integration-test	2.32% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
oats-test	0.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests	44.65% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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.

[rafaelroquetto]

Man, these maps are complicated... but it LGTM, apart from the usage of macros - perhaps this is a good opportunity for us to migrate away from them in the code we are touching anyway, what do you think?

(I'm mostly referring to the #define <CONSTANT> statements that could be turned into enum { k_constant = X };

[grcevski]

LGTM! Looks great, do you know if the overhead increased now that we check all those maps in the runtime probe?

[mmat11]

This branch

  █ TOTAL RESULTS

    HTTP
    http_req_duration..............: avg=159.95µs min=65.75µs med=128.37µs max=3.31ms p(90)=251.87µs p(95)=298.67µs
      { expected_response:true }...: avg=159.95µs min=65.75µs med=128.37µs max=3.31ms p(90)=251.87µs p(95)=298.67µs
    http_req_failed................: 0.00%  0 out of 15001
    http_reqs......................: 15001  500.008854/s

    EXECUTION
    iteration_duration.............: avg=178.41µs min=80.25µs med=145.21µs max=3.88ms p(90)=276.75µs p(95)=325µs
    iterations.....................: 15001  500.008854/s
    vus............................: 1      min=0          max=1
    vus_max........................: 10     min=10         max=10

    NETWORK
    data_received..................: 2.2 MB 74 kB/s
    data_sent......................: 2.6 MB 85 kB/s

Baseline (main)

  █ TOTAL RESULTS

    HTTP
    http_req_duration..............: avg=158.91µs min=69.5µs  med=127.83µs max=3.09ms p(90)=254.5µs  p(95)=299µs
      { expected_response:true }...: avg=158.91µs min=69.5µs  med=127.83µs max=3.09ms p(90)=254.5µs  p(95)=299µs
    http_req_failed................: 0.00%  0 out of 15001
    http_reqs......................: 15001  500.016858/s

    EXECUTION
    iteration_duration.............: avg=177.54µs min=84.71µs med=145.58µs max=3.11ms p(90)=280.54µs p(95)=326.04µs
    iterations.....................: 15001  500.016858/s
    vus............................: 1      min=0          max=1
    vus_max........................: 10     min=10         max=10

    NETWORK
    data_received..................: 2.2 MB 74 kB/s
    data_sent......................: 2.6 MB 85 kB/s

I think it's pretty much the same because the benchmark doesn't hit the last map lookup in order to hit the "slowest path"

[grcevski]

Amazing, thanks for doing the run @mmat11 !