fix: Fix validation in Metric stream

[cijothomas]

Most copy-pasted from instrument creation validation for now. A future refactor can move this to a common place and fully address #2986

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.28571% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.5%. Comparing base (8c29ca7) to head (5550cf2).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/instrument.rs	89.2%	24 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #2991    +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage   81.4%   81.5%            
======================================
  Files        126     126            
  Lines      24573   24796   +223     
======================================
+ Hits       20008   20213   +205     
- Misses      4565    4583    +18     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[utpilla]

nit: You could use unwrap_err() and possibly even get rid of the err.to_string() check below.

Suggested change

	let err = result.err().unwrap();
	let err = result.unwrap_err();

[utpilla]

Now that we are doing the validation while building the stream, we could get rid of this code:

opentelemetry-rust/opentelemetry-sdk/src/metrics/internal/histogram.rs

Lines 95 to 100 in 8c29ca7

	#[cfg(feature = "spec_unstable_metrics_views")]
	{
	// TODO: When views are used, validate this upfront
	bounds.retain(|v| !v.is_nan());
	bounds.sort_by(|a, b| a.partial_cmp(b).expect("NaNs filtered out"));
	}

[cijothomas]

good point, will tackle it soon.