[repo] Allow skipping paths in sanity check script

[joaopgrassi]

Split from #1944 and #2040

Design discussion:

#2040 (comment)

Changes

Changes the sanitycheck python script to exclude paths from the checks. For a simple version, the directories to exclude are hard coded. Let me know if you think this is a good start or if you want to make it more dynamic (e.g., passed via GH actions)

Merge requirement checklist

• CONTRIBUTING guidelines followed (license requirements, nullable enabled, static analysis, etc.)
• Unit tests added/updated
• Appropriate CHANGELOG.md files updated for non-trivial changes
• Changes in public API reviewed (if applicable)

CC @cijothomas

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.62%. Comparing base (71655ce) to head (22c9994).
Report is 416 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2060      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.91%   77.62%   +3.70%     
==========================================
  Files         267      320      +53     
  Lines        9615    12579    +2964     
==========================================
+ Hits         7107     9764    +2657     
- Misses       2508     2815     +307     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-Exporter.Geneva	65.35% <ø> (?)
unittests-Exporter.InfluxDB	95.88% <ø> (?)
unittests-Exporter.Instana	71.24% <ø> (?)
unittests-Exporter.OneCollector	94.32% <ø> (?)
unittests-Exporter.Stackdriver	75.73% <ø> (?)
unittests-Extensions	88.57% <ø> (?)
unittests-Extensions.AWS	83.41% <ø> (?)
unittests-Extensions.Enrichment	100.00% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.AWS	84.78% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.AWSLambda	88.92% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.AspNet	76.73% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.AspNetCore	85.27% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.ElasticsearchClient	79.87% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.EntityFrameworkCore	55.49% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.EventCounters	76.36% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.GrpcNetClient	79.61% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Hangfire	93.58% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Http	82.06% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Owin	85.79% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Process	100.00% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Quartz	78.94% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Runtime	100.00% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.SqlClient	90.90% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.StackExchangeRedis	69.92% <ø> (?)
unittests-Instrumentation.Wcf	78.47% <ø> (?)
unittests-PersistentStorage	65.78% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.AWS	77.93% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.Azure	82.35% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.Container	72.41% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.Gcp	72.54% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.Host	73.94% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.OperatingSystem	77.20% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.Process	100.00% <ø> (?)
unittests-Resources.ProcessRuntime	77.08% <ø> (?)
unittests-Sampler.AWS	86.33% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 333 files with indirect coverage changes

[cijothomas]

nit: Add a comment saying these are done to mainly for auto-generated code from the checks, until code generation itself can be fixed, if at all possible.

[cijothomas]

This looks good. Don't think we need more sophisticated mechanisms for now.
Thank you!