Add experimental option to disable autoconfigured opentelemetry SDK

[jack-berg]

Resolves #4483.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4489 (6526d67) into main (3ed74b6) will decrease coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 97.29%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #4489      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     90.18%   90.05%   -0.14%     
- Complexity     5010     5052      +42     
============================================
  Files           569      580      +11     
  Lines         15440    15562     +122     
  Branches       1488     1494       +6     
============================================
+ Hits          13925    14014      +89     
- Misses         1056     1087      +31     
- Partials        459      461       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../autoconfigure/AutoConfiguredOpenTelemetrySdk.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...nfigure/AutoConfiguredOpenTelemetrySdkBuilder.java	92.08% <97.29%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
...ava/io/opentelemetry/api/metrics/DefaultMeter.java	89.71% <0.00%> (-10.29%)	⬇️
...metry/exporter/internal/okhttp/OkHttpExporter.java	85.71% <0.00%> (-9.53%)	⬇️
...autoconfigure/LogEmitterProviderConfiguration.java	91.66% <0.00%> (-8.34%)	⬇️
...metry/sdk/metrics/export/PeriodicMetricReader.java	86.95% <0.00%> (-2.90%)	⬇️
...entelemetry/sdk/logs/export/BatchLogProcessor.java	88.72% <0.00%> (-0.76%)	⬇️
...y/sdk/metrics/internal/state/MeterSharedState.java	97.46% <0.00%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
...c/main/java/io/opentelemetry/sdk/metrics/View.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...in/java/io/opentelemetry/sdk/metrics/SdkMeter.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 86 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 3ed74b6...6526d67. Read the comment docs.

[jkwatson]

Seems reasonable. Thanks!

[NthPortal]

This PR does not appear to have or add a code path that can return null, and after several hours of poking at the current code, that fact does not seem to have changed since. Is this a bug? or did the design get changed after the doc was written?

[jack-berg]

Oops. The response of this method was originally nullable but per this conversation, we went in a different direction. Looks like the javadoc never got updated - sorry about the confusion.

I've opened #6109 to fix the comment.