Unify blob size limit breach logging and metering

[3vilhamster]

What changed?
I introduced a new log and metric for the blob size limit breach.

Why?
We want to track blob size violations for each domain and be able to identify all failed workflows.

How did you test it?
Unit tests.

Potential risks
For misconfigured domains we can introduce a lot of logs, but that is not expected state.

Release notes
Introduced new metric for blob size violations:
blob_size_exceed_limit that can point to issues for a specific domain and operation.

Documentation Changes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.98%. Comparing base (c0cd4c5) to head (0d86ea5).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Files	Coverage Δ
common/util.go	81.41% <100.00%> (+2.56%)	⬆️
service/frontend/api/handler.go	65.57% <100.00%> (+0.19%)	⬆️
service/history/decision/checker.go	79.49% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
service/history/decision/handler.go	94.95% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c0cd4c5...0d86ea5. Read the comment docs.

[Groxx]

really makes me wish we had a common name-and-id pair :| we have access to both almost everywhere...

that'd be a bigger change tho, so 👍

[3vilhamster]

Yep. We do have a domain cache, but it is not propagated everywhere. I f we used DI, we could separate this component and make sure that domain cache is provided, but we don't for now.

[Groxx]

Some small Qs and nits but overall LGTM. Seems fine to merge as-is, everything's optional and only if you agree :)