add transports constructor option

[Eomm]

Implements #1105

Opening as a draft to ask what do you prefer if:

• users add unnecessary options like a destination: should pino throw an error?

  const instance = pino({
    name: 'logger',
    transport: {
      target: '#pino/file',
      options: { destination }
    }
  }, '/log/path')

• are you ok with the new transports field name to manage both pino.transport() input? ( {target} or {targets:[]} )

Then I'm going to add more tests and doc as well

[mcollina]

Good work! I think it should throw if stream is otherwise defined.

[mcollina]

lgtm

[davidmarkclements]

do we do this require('pino') inline thing elsewhere in the docs?

[Eomm]

There are 18 occurrences of require('pino') in this file actually: would you like to migrate the examples to pino?

[jsumners]

Do they assign the result of require or do they use it directly like this example?

[Eomm]

Both declaration tbh

https://github.com/pinojs/pino/blob/5333d73773f59331c2d5c7962dec3ee00574fc6f/docs/api.md#destination-sonicboom--writablestream--string--object

I can update this example and the other ones if you tell me what do you prefer.
Is the cjs syntax not up to date for users?

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.