support the "none" option for propagator configuration

[jkwatson]

resolves #5108

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 91.03% // Head: 91.11% // Increases project coverage by +0.07% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (d2d746f) compared to base (40d9c64).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5121      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     91.03%   91.11%   +0.07%     
- Complexity     4875     4903      +28     
============================================
  Files           549      549              
  Lines         14437    14501      +64     
  Branches       1390     1392       +2     
============================================
+ Hits          13143    13212      +69     
+ Misses          894      890       -4     
+ Partials        400      399       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...try/sdk/autoconfigure/PropagatorConfiguration.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...metry/exporter/internal/marshal/MarshalerUtil.java	89.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ry/exporter/internal/marshal/CodedInputStream.java	63.15% <0.00%> (ø)
...etry/exporter/internal/otlp/KeyValueMarshaler.java	93.47% <0.00%> (ø)
...rter/internal/otlp/logs/ResourceLogsMarshaler.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...r/internal/otlp/traces/ResourceSpansMarshaler.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...nternal/otlp/metrics/ResourceMetricsMarshaler.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...metry/exporter/internal/okhttp/OkHttpExporter.java	90.14% <0.00%> (+0.74%)	⬆️
...elemetry/exporter/logging/LoggingSpanExporter.java	95.12% <0.00%> (+0.83%)	⬆️
...y/exporter/internal/grpc/UpstreamGrpcExporter.java	91.30% <0.00%> (+1.06%)	⬆️
... and 9 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[jkwatson]

@jack-berg you ok with this approach?

[breedx-splk]

@jack-berg you ok with this approach?

It sounded to me like he was asking for consistency with the existing configurations that explode a ConfigurationException when a nonsense configuration like none,baggage is specified.

[jkwatson]

@jack-berg you ok with this approach?

It sounded to me like he was asking for consistency with the existing configurations that explode a ConfigurationException when a nonsense configuration like none,baggage is specified.

Yep. Haven't had a chance to get to it yet.