hostmetricsreceiver: (filesystems scraper) Collect additional labels from partitions

[asuresh4]

Description: Collect additional labels (fs.type, mount.mode, mount.point) in the filesystems scraper. Currently the receiver does not honor multiple mount points for a single device. This change will capture all mount points in such cases and also collects the mode (ro or rw). This PR also adds a label called fs.type to capture filesystem type.

In a followup PR, will add ability to filter by mount points as well.

Link to tracking Issue: #1852

Testing: Updated tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1858 into master will decrease coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1858      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.23%   91.14%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         272      269       -3     
  Lines       16263    16218      -45     
==========================================
- Hits        14838    14782      -56     
- Misses        998     1008      +10     
- Partials      427      428       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...l/scraper/filesystemscraper/filesystem_metadata.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...al/scraper/filesystemscraper/filesystem_scraper.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...raper/filesystemscraper/filesystem_scraper_unix.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...mplingprocessor/tailsamplingprocessor/processor.go	66.66% <0.00%> (-7.38%)	⬇️
translator/internaldata/oc_to_metrics.go	91.97% <0.00%> (-0.41%)	⬇️
testutil/testutil.go	91.52% <0.00%> (ø)
consumer/pdata/trace.go	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
consumer/pdata/generated_log.go	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
consumer/pdata/generated_trace.go	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
translator/internaldata/oc_to_traces.go	85.46% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 14 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4a45ae9...b2b9398. Read the comment docs.

[james-bebbington]

Consider also commenting here: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/pull/937/files#diff-e1b356f0825fda1cf1ab5863aeeaa288R141

[tigrannajaryan]

@asuresh4 are these changes compliant with the proposal for system metric names here? https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-helm-charts/

I know spec PR is not yet merged, but I wonder if there is an intersection between what you did and that PR and if we will need to adjust anything if spec PR is merged.

[asuresh4]

@asuresh4 are these changes compliant with the proposal for system metric names here? https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-helm-charts/

I know spec PR is not yet merged, but I wonder if there is an intersection between what you did and that PR and if we will need to adjust anything if spec PR is merged.

@tigrannajaryan - I left a comment here: open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#937, is that the PR you're referring to? 3 new labels for filesystems will need to included in the spec as part of this update.

[tigrannajaryan]

@asuresh4 are these changes compliant with the proposal for system metric names here? https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-helm-charts/
I know spec PR is not yet merged, but I wonder if there is an intersection between what you did and that PR and if we will need to adjust anything if spec PR is merged.

@tigrannajaryan - I left a comment here: open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#937, is that the PR you're referring to? 3 new labels for filesystems will need to included in the spec as part of this update.

Yes, that one, sorry for the incorrect link in my previous comment.