k8sclusterreceiver: migrate to latest semconv version

[narcis96]

Description: The version of semconv is upgraded from to v1.18.0 to v1.27.0

Link to tracking Issue: #22095

Testing: Tests passed

[povilasv]

Did you check that k8scluster receiver actually implements semconv 1.27? Are there any code changes needed to follow newest version of semconv?

[TylerHelmuth]

Upgrading semconv is risky. Please confirm that no metrics or attributes emitted by this component change bc of this upgrade.

[narcis96]

Upgrading semconv is risky. Please confirm that no metrics or attributes emitted by this component change bc of this upgrade.

I think that it actually has 0 risk. The semconv attributes' value have been compared using go-otel-semconv-comparator resulting in 0 diffs.

[narcis96]

hey guys, can you please take a look ? @dmitryax @povilasv @TylerHelmuth

[povilasv]

Could you elaborate what your tools does? What did you compare? Where did you found no differences?

[narcis96]

Could you elaborate what your tools does? What did you compare? Where did you found no differences?

@povilasv

The tool checks that all constants from the older semconv version have the same value inside the newer semconv version.
You can check the existing upgrades: #22095

[github-actions]

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

[narcis96]

did my last reply answered your question ? are there any concerns on this ? @dmitryax @TylerHelmuth @povilasv

[povilasv]

I am not really sure what you are comparing, and if it's good enought?

As #35238 (review) was written previously, you should check what this component emits vs what is specified in the latest semconv. Are there any attributes that need changing?

[github-actions]

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

[ChrsMark]

Looked for which conventions are used in the component: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aopen-telemetry%2Fopentelemetry-collector-contrib+path%3Areceiver%2Fk8sclusterreceiver+conventions.&type=code&ref=advsearch

It appears that resource names and uids are used which I believe have not changed. @povilasv could you double check?