update xpassing baggage tests for unimplemented languages

[rachelyangdog]

Motivation

Currently, some of the baggage tests are xpassing for langauges where baggage has not been implemented yet (this is because of the negative assertion tests).

Changes

Workflow

1. ⚠️ Create your PR as draft ⚠️
2. Work on you PR until the CI passes (if something not related to your task is failing, you can ignore it)
3. Mark it as ready for review
   • Test logic is modified? -> Get a review from RFC owner. We're working on refining the codeowners file quickly.
   • Framework is modified, or non obvious usage of it -> get a review from R&P team

🚀 Once your PR is reviewed, you can merge it!

🛟 #apm-shared-testing 🛟

Reviewer checklist

• If PR title starts with [<language>], double-check that only <language> is impacted by the change
• No system-tests internal is modified. Otherwise, I have the approval from R&P team
• CI is green, or failing jobs are not related to this change (and you are 100% sure about this statement)
• A docker base image is modified?
  • the relevant build-XXX-image label is present
• A scenario is added (or removed)?
  • Get a review from R&P team

[robertomonteromiguel]

Could we use the same "_assert_valid_baggage" for both checks? Adding a new param to the method

[bm1549]

[q] Is there any way we can make the same check for our baggage disabled tests (D003 and D007)?

[rachelyangdog]

[q] Is there any way we can make the same check for our baggage disabled tests (D003 and D007)?

I spoke with @cbeauchesne, and we concluded that the only way to pass the baggage_disable tests right now is to skip them for languages that haven’t implemented baggage yet. Since there’s no available telemetry or logs to differentiate which languages support baggage, I added a change to skip the tests for those languages. Let me know what you think!