Add E2E test verifying OTEL tracing across Zenko services

[delthas]

Summary

• Deploy Jaeger all-in-one (memory-only, OTLP-enabled, pinned to 1.76.0)
  in the kind CI cluster alongside existing dependencies (Keycloak,
  Prometheus, etc.)
• Patch the Zenko CR with spec.tracing (enabled, sampling ratio 1.0)
  so every request is traced during CI — this also acts as a smoke test
  that OTEL doesn't break existing @PreMerge tests
• Add a new @PreMerge CTST scenario that puts an S3 object and then
  polls the Jaeger query API to assert a trace exists with spans from
  both connector-cloudserver and connector-vault (matching the
  OTEL_SERVICE_NAME values emitted by the operator)

What changed

File	What
install-kind-dependencies.sh	Jaeger Deployment + Service YAML (pinned jaegertracing/all-in-one:1.76.0)
configure-e2e-ctst.sh	kubectl patch zenko with spec.tracing, wait for cloudserver + vault rollout
setup-e2e-env.sh	Jaeger port-forward + JaegerQueryEndpoint in world params
world/Zenko.ts	JaegerQueryEndpoint added to ZenkoWorldParameters
features/otel-tracing.feature	New @PreMerge scenario
steps/otel-tracing.ts	Jaeger polling (30s timeout / 2s interval), bucket-name trace filter (parallel-worker safe), trace assertions

Why

Parent ticket OS-1072
tracks adding OpenTelemetry tracing across the Zenko stack. This PR
adds CI coverage to verify that traces actually propagate end-to-end
(cloudserver → vault) once tracing is enabled on the CR.

Dependencies

Requires zenko-operator PR #607 (ZKOP-539)
to be merged and the bundled operator version bumped in
solution/deps.yaml — it adds the spec.tracing CRD field and
propagates ENABLE_OTEL / OTEL_* env vars to the managed
deployments. Without it, the kubectl patch here will be rejected
as an unknown field.

Issue: ZENKO-5258

[bert-e]

Hello delthas,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

• the author

• 2 peers

[bert-e]

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

• the author

• 2 peers

[francoisferrand]

overall not sure where to stand here: there is a fundamental compromise: do we want to test the "production" case first and foremost (i.e. without tracing), or is it safe-enough to enable Otel all the time (i.e. not testing production anymore, which could hide crashes or introduce subtle delays...)

[SylvainSenechal]

side question, here the jaeger server will be killed at the end the ci run, but would it be possible to have the traces data retained, so that maybe we could export these traces data in the artifact, and spin up a server to explore them with a ui ?

[delthas]

Moved to a ratio of 0% (no traces, but enabled); and injecting a forcefully enabled trace using a traceparent header directly made against cloudserver (bypassing the Ingress that strips it)

This should bring no performance overhead, no overlay reconfiguration, and nicely isolate our test trace.