Fix duplicate logs across resources

[pree-dew]

1. Create scope map with resource key to map the correct log record.
2. Add test case with different resource and scope combination

Fixes #5782

Benchmarks

goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: go.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlplog/otlploggrpc/internal/transform
               │   old.txt   │               new.txt               │
               │   sec/op    │   sec/op     vs base                │
ResourceLogs-8   3.266µ ± 3%   1.100µ ± 5%  -66.33% (p=0.000 n=10)

               │   old.txt    │               new.txt                │
               │     B/op     │     B/op      vs base                │
ResourceLogs-8   8.297Ki ± 0%   2.430Ki ± 0%  -70.72% (p=0.000 n=10)

               │   old.txt   │              new.txt               │
               │  allocs/op  │ allocs/op   vs base                │
ResourceLogs-8   178.00 ± 0%   52.00 ± 0%  -70.79% (p=0.000 n=10)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.5%. Comparing base (42fd8fe) to head (5994633).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #5803     +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage   84.5%   84.5%   -0.1%     
=======================================
  Files        272     272             
  Lines      22758   22734     -24     
=======================================
- Hits       19250   19226     -24     
  Misses      3165    3165             
  Partials     343     343             

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[pree-dew]

@dmathieu all checks have passed except this one https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go/actions/runs/10809312925/job/29984151866?pr=5803, it looks flaky as it was passing in previous build.

Let me know your feedback on PR, open to discuss and fix it. :)

[pellared]

I think this PR removes the performance optimization from #5378. It seems undesirable. Can you add benchmark results to PR description once it is ready for review?

[pree-dew]

@pellared

I think this PR removes the performance optimization from #5378. It seems undesirable. Can you add benchmark results to PR description once it is ready for review?

Sure, I can bring back the pool in the PR if the benchmark doesn't match the performance requirement. Thanks for the feedback.

[pree-dew]

@pellared Added benchmarks in PR description. Let me know your thoughts on the same.

[XSAM]

@pree-dew Thanks for the help! Good catch.

It overall looks good to me. I only have the test comment that needs to be solved.

[pree-dew]

@XSAM @pellared looks like checks of test-race and test-coverage are facing some type of weird issue, it is not reproducible on my github and local, plus it is showing the error at a line that doesn't exists in current version of code. Can you help with this? or am I missing something.

[pellared]

@pree-dew, can you please sync with main?

[pree-dew]

@pellared Sync with main is done

[pellared]

I am not sure how the bug was reproduced and if this a valid scenario.

On the other hand, I am surprised that it looks like this code has better performance (I have not analyzed why).

[pellared]

Closing per #5782 (comment)

However, it would be good to check why performance has been improved according to the benchmark.

[pellared]

Reopening per #5782 (comment)