docs: logs enrichment

[stefanobaghino]

Fixes #2759

Changes

The approach suggested here by @scottgerring has been implemented:

Something along these lines perhaps:

 #[derive(Debug)]
  pub struct EnrichmentProcessor<P: LogProcessor> {
      /// The wrapped processor that will receive enriched log records
      next: P,
  }

impl<P: LogProcessor> LogProcessor for EnrichmentProcessor<P> {
     #[cfg(feature = "spec_unstable_logs_enabled")]
      fn event_enabled(&self, level: Severity, target: &str, name: Option<&str>) -> bool {
          // Delegate to wrapped processor
          self.next.event_enabled(level, target, name)
      }

}

Merge requirement checklist

• CONTRIBUTING guidelines followed
• Unit tests added/updated (if applicable)
• Appropriate CHANGELOG.md files updated for non-trivial, user-facing changes
• Changes in public API reviewed (if applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 80.7%. Comparing base (627f252) to head (42d0340).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #3266   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   80.7%   80.7%           
=====================================
  Files        129     129           
  Lines      23210   23210           
=====================================
  Hits       18748   18748           
  Misses      4462    4462           

☔ 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.

[stefanobaghino]

I haven't seen any changelog entry for examples, but do let me know if I should add something to the changelog.

[scottgerring]

Hey @stefanobaghino thanks for raising this!
ACK Cijo's comments above; you'll also need to format, but otherwise seems good to me

[stefanobaghino]

Hey @stefanobaghino thanks for raising this! ACK Cijo's comments above; you'll also need to format, but otherwise seems good to me

Thanks for pointing that out to me, formatting addressed in a446807 (and I checked again after addressing @cijothomas's comments).

[cijothomas]

we just merged a PR that removes this feature flag. The feature is stable and now does not require feature flags. Could you update to reflect it?

[stefanobaghino]

Merged with main in 013c15f, feature flag removed in 4ee58a3.