Correctly recode client infomation to the slowlog when runing script

[enjoy-binbin]

Currently when we are runing a script, we will passing a fake client.
So if the command executed in the script is recoded in the slowlog,
the client's ip:port and name information will be empty.

[enjoy-binbin]

before:

127.0.0.1:6379> client setname myclient
OK
127.0.0.1:6379> config set slowlog-log-slower-than 0
OK
127.0.0.1:6379> eval "redis.call('ping')" 0
(nil)
127.0.0.1:6379> slowlog get 2
1) 1) (integer) 2
   2) (integer) 1721314289
   3) (integer) 96
   4) 1) "eval"
      2) "redis.call('ping')"
      3) "0"
   5) "127.0.0.1:61106"
   6) "myclient"
2) 1) (integer) 1
   2) (integer) 1721314289
   3) (integer) 4
   4) 1) "ping"
   5) ""
   6) ""

after:

127.0.0.1:6379> client setname myclient
OK
127.0.0.1:6379> config set slowlog-log-slower-than 0
OK
127.0.0.1:6379> eval "redis.call('ping')" 0
(nil)
127.0.0.1:6379> slowlog get 2
1) 1) (integer) 2
   2) (integer) 1721314371
   3) (integer) 53
   4) 1) "eval"
      2) "redis.call('ping')"
      3) "0"
   5) "127.0.0.1:51983"
   6) "myclient"
2) 1) (integer) 1
   2) (integer) 1721314371
   3) (integer) 1
   4) 1) "ping"
   5) "127.0.0.1:51983"
   6) "myclient"

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70.34%. Comparing base (c584371) to head (6a90585).
Report is 4 commits behind head on unstable.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable     #805      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     70.44%   70.34%   -0.10%     
============================================
  Files           112      112              
  Lines         61135    61265     +130     
============================================
+ Hits          43066    43099      +33     
- Misses        18069    18166      +97     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/server.c	88.56% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

... and 17 files with indirect coverage changes

[madolson]

I'm a bit on the fence. On one side the client didn't actually execute these commands, they were part of a script that invoked them, but it will probably be clearer to have the client that invoked them display.

So I guess I'm good with this. I left a comment on the test, but find leaving it as sis.