chore(iast): cmdi instrumented sink metric

[avara1986]

Enable CMDi instrumented sink metric

Checklist

• Change(s) are motivated and described in the PR description
• Testing strategy is described if automated tests are not included in the PR
• Risks are described (performance impact, potential for breakage, maintainability)
• Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
• Library release note guidelines are followed or label changelog/no-changelog is set
• Documentation is included (in-code, generated user docs, public corp docs)
• Backport labels are set (if applicable)
• If this PR changes the public interface, I've notified @DataDog/apm-tees.
• If change touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages, or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from @DataDog/security-design-and-guidance.

Reviewer Checklist

• Title is accurate
• All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
• Description motivates each change
• Avoids breaking API changes
• Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
• Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
• Release note makes sense to a user of the library
• Author has acknowledged and discussed the performance implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
• Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the release branch maintenance policy

[datadog-dd-trace-py-rkomorn]

Datadog Report

Branch report: avara1986/APPSEC-52862-iast_cmdi_instrumented_metric
Commit report: 4363266
Test service: dd-trace-py

✅ 0 Failed, 112196 Passed, 804 Skipped, 46m 6.54s Total duration (6m 44.17s time saved)

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2024-05-13 10:41:06

Comparing candidate commit 4363266 in PR branch avara1986/APPSEC-52862-iast_cmdi_instrumented_metric with baseline commit 60be242 in branch main.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 209 metrics, 9 unstable metrics.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 11 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 6.72%. Comparing base (60be242) to head (4363266).

Files	Patch %	Lines
tests/appsec/iast/test_telemetry.py	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
...race/appsec/_iast/taint_sinks/command_injection.py	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9214       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   78.58%    6.72%   -71.86%     
===========================================
  Files        1277     1247       -30     
  Lines      120432   118663     -1769     
===========================================
- Hits        94646     7985    -86661     
- Misses      25786   110678    +84892     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[gnufede]

Maybe add a simple regression test? Like ensure that it's called on patch?