RUM-10907: Support process_uptime attribute for telemetry debug/error events

[satween]

What does this PR do?

• Adds new method to the TimeProvider allowing to get the amount of time (in milliseconds) since process start. The api for that was added only for Android SDK 24, so for previous versions class load time gonna be used.
• Fixes some assert messages that was copy-pasted and contained wrong values.
• Reduces code duplications for TimeInfo instance creation.

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Make sure you discussed the feature or bugfix with the maintaining team in an Issue
• Make sure each commit and the PR mention the Issue number (cf the CONTRIBUTING doc)

[0xnm]

I'm curious if it is fine to have a different behavior for the same property. Maybe it is worth to make this property nullable and return null for API 23? And then it will be up to the caller what to do.

Otherwise we may see inconsistent data if the result of this property is used in some data we send.

WDYT?

[satween]

Well I was trying to find a balance between support complexity and value it provides:

1. getStartElapsedRealtime is supported from the version 24 of Android SDK, current minSdk is 23. So the amount of such devices is relatively small.
2. This attribute represents the amount of time spend from some moment in the past and represents relativity, not the actual time, from that perspective seems like there no so big difference from which point it would be calculated as the point remains the same for each device.
3. After @aleksandr-gringauz's suggestion, I changed logic to use AppStartTimeProvider so the value will be more even precise

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 84.00000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 71.13%. Comparing base (2a08737) to head (2633d21).
⚠️ Report is 16 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...n/com/datadog/android/core/internal/CoreFeature.kt	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...tadog/android/core/internal/NoOpContextProvider.kt	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...tadog/android/core/internal/NoOpInternalSdkCore.kt	66.67%	1 Missing ⚠️
.../com/datadog/android/internal/time/TimeProvider.kt	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3013      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    71.32%   71.13%   -0.19%     
===========================================
  Files          859      861       +2     
  Lines        31315    31308       -7     
  Branches      5276     5276              
===========================================
- Hits         22334    22268      -66     
- Misses        7511     7534      +23     
- Partials      1470     1506      +36     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...kotlin/com/datadog/android/api/context/TimeInfo.kt	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...kotlin/com/datadog/android/core/InternalSdkCore.kt	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...og/android/core/internal/DatadogContextProvider.kt	97.73% <100.00%> (-0.39%)	⬇️
...n/com/datadog/android/core/internal/DatadogCore.kt	77.59% <100.00%> (-0.60%)	⬇️
.../core/internal/time/DefaultAppStartTimeProvider.kt	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...g/android/core/internal/time/KronosTimeProvider.kt	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...adog/android/core/internal/time/TimeProviderExt.kt	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...tadog/android/internal/time/DefaultTimeProvider.kt	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ndroid/telemetry/internal/TelemetryEventHandler.kt	83.85% <100.00%> (-2.23%)	⬇️
...n/com/datadog/android/core/internal/CoreFeature.kt	84.73% <0.00%> (-0.24%)	⬇️
... and 3 more

... and 30 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[0xnm]

is this change needed?