fix(amqplib)!: instrumentation produced high cardinality span names

[cedricziel]

Which problem is this PR solving?

This change amends the amqplib instrumentation so it adheres to span name conventions mentioned here https://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/semconv/messaging/messaging-spans/#span-name

Ref: #2367

Short description of the changes

Ensure span name is low cardinality and uses a standard operation name

fixes: #2367

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.40%. Comparing base (dfb2dff) to head (b54f710).
Report is 200 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2366      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.97%   90.40%   -0.57%     
==========================================
  Files         146      149       +3     
  Lines        7492     7361     -131     
  Branches     1502     1527      +25     
==========================================
- Hits         6816     6655     -161     
- Misses        676      706      +30     

Files	Coverage Δ
...lugins/node/instrumentation-amqplib/src/amqplib.ts	90.67% <100.00%> (+0.27%)	⬆️

... and 66 files with indirect coverage changes

[maryliag]

small nit, otherwise LGTM

[trentm]

LGTM.

I'll wait for a bit to let Amir, as component owner, to have a chance to review.

FWIW, the ... -> ${routingKey} in the span.name dates back to the original commit: aspecto-io/opentelemetry-ext-js@e3bd5ea#diff-f1a7a2a54feb09ebd4bde5c788752e112f0d521fa6de4b05d725a887b2cf743dR305

[JamieDanielson]

I've not reviewed this in full but it seems like it should be marked as a breaking change, even if it is technically a fix.

[blumamir]

Thank you @cedricziel
overall LGTM, left 2 nit suggestions / concerns

[blumamir]

I've not reviewed this in full but it seems like it should be marked as a breaking change, even if it is technically a fix.

Do you think it's breaking because someone might rely on the current name for some logic?
I would personally not consider it breaking, but since the current major is 0 I don't see any harm in marking it as breaking just in case