[receiver/iis] Add IIS Metrics Receiver

[Mrod1598]

Description:
Add IIS Metrics receiver using windows performance counter as a base.

Link to tracking Issue:
#8370

Testing:
Added config testing, factory tests, and receiver tests that ensure the config is built correctly.

Documentation:
Added doc explaining use of receiver.

[Mrod1598]

@djaglowski ok this is ready for a look when you get a second.

[djaglowski]

Overall this is looking good to me.

Is it possible to add integration tests? It seems likely these counters are available on the default windows image used by github actions.

[Mrod1598]

Overall this is looking good to me.

Is it possible to add integration tests? It seems likely these counters are available on the default windows image used by github actions.

here's a list of the tech that comes installed on github actions boxes, doesn't look like IIS is installed

[dmitryax]

To be honest I don't think using windowsperfcountersreceiver is the right approach here:

1. Metrics builder provides metrics filtering for now, but it will provide other features soon, e.g. aggregation across the attributes, changing temporality. This receiver will be ignoring user settings for those features.
2. Using a receiver as an API for another receiver is not the best approach in general IMO. As a receiver author, I would never expect that receiver's Start is used by other components. I believe this can lead to subtle bugs caused by some internal changes in the windowsperfcountersreceiver. I think we should use common packages for code shared across receivers and avoid direct dependancies between components.

I think we should the following:

1. Move parts of windowsperfcountersreceiver to a common package that would expose API to retrieve data.
2. Use that API here instead of Start. This will make sure that all features of the metrics builder are supported.

@Mrod1598 @djaglowski WDYT?

[djaglowski]

@dmitryax I think your proposal makes sense.

I think there are circumstances where wrapping or composing other components is a reasonable approach, but I don't think it works well in this case.

[Mrod1598]

@djaglowski This is ready for another review when you're ready.

[djaglowski]

Looks really good. Just a few nits & need to use scrapererror.

[djaglowski]

Also need a codeowners entry for the component. Please list yourself, as well as me.

[djaglowski]

LGTM