Add Scheme to MapProvider interface

[bogdandrutu]

This is another required step in order to support configuring map providers via the Builder.

Updates #4759

This is a breaking change, since adds a new func to an interface. It is hard to make this backwards compatible, and would like to move forward with this exception.

Signed-off-by: Bogdan Drutu bogdandrutu@gmail.com

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5068 (c6a015f) into main (46e9040) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5068   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.33%   90.33%           
=======================================
  Files         182      182           
  Lines       11024    11032    +8     
=======================================
+ Hits         9958     9966    +8     
  Misses        841      841           
  Partials      225      225           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
config/mapprovider/envmapprovider/mapprovider.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
config/mapprovider/filemapprovider/mapprovider.go	84.21% <100.00%> (+1.85%)	⬆️
config/mapprovider/yamlmapprovider/mapprovider.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
service/config_provider.go	94.33% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️

---

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 46e9040...c6a015f. Read the comment docs.

[mx-psi]

LGTM, I find this to be an acceptable breakage of the rules (but would like to hear from at least one other approver)

[dmitryax]

Seems reasonable to me as well

[tigrannajaryan]

Does Scheme() need to be part of MapProvider interface? I see an analogy with components where we made Type part of the component factory, not of the component instance itself. Using this same approach we can introduce MapProviderFactory that would know the Scheme and then would allow creating MapProviders in MustNewDefaultConfigProvider.

[bogdandrutu]

I see an analogy with components where we made Type part of the component factory, not of the component instance itself.

I have a different view of this, kind of the MapProvider is the equivalent of the Factory and the Retrieved value is the component.

[tigrannajaryan]

I see an analogy with components where we made Type part of the component factory, not of the component instance itself.

I have a different view of this, kind of the MapProvider is the equivalent of the Factory and the Retrieved value is the component.

Yeah, I guess that works too. The factory-based approach would probably be a bit more uniform with what we do with components from naming perspective, but I think your approach is fine too.