fix(grpc): patch original client methods

[mayurkale22]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• Fixes gRPC client methods are not patched correctly #630 and gRPC plugin is not working correctly when loaded with @grpc/proto-loader  #384
• Related to fix(grpc): patch loadPackageDefinition #400

Short description of the changes

• The client constructor in the grpc module creates a method alias using the originalName (if present). We didn't patch/trace these methods before, so this PR resolves this problem.

• Original issue nodejs client doesn't seem to work with include path, anymore grpc/grpc#12135

• I have verified the solution with grpc example with dynamic codegen and been confirmed to be working.

/cc @markwolff

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #631 into master will decrease coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #631      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.95%   91.89%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         190      189       -1     
  Lines        9487     9350     -137     
  Branches      856      852       -4     
==========================================
- Hits         8724     8592     -132     
+ Misses        763      758       -5

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ckages/opentelemetry-plugin-grpc/test/grpc.test.ts	96.2% <100%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
packages/opentelemetry-plugin-grpc/src/grpc.ts	96.25% <100%> (+0.1%)	⬆️
...ges/opentelemetry-tracing/src/NoopSpanProcessor.ts	66.66% <0%> (-8.34%)	⬇️
packages/opentelemetry-plugin-mysql/src/utils.ts	90.9% <0%> (-4.55%)	⬇️
...res/opentelemetry-plugin-pg/test/assertionUtils.ts	96.29% <0%> (-3.71%)	⬇️
...entelemetry-exporter-jaeger/test/transform.test.ts	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
...opentelemetry-base/test/resources/resource.test.ts	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
packages/opentelemetry-tracing/src/config.ts	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
packages/opentelemetry-tracing/src/utility.ts	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
...telemetry-plugin-grpc/test/utils/assertionUtils.ts	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
... and 14 more

[markwolff]

Is this ServiceDefintion type removed for better readability?

[mayurkale22]

Yes, that's right.

[dyladan]

Why is this a never[]

[OlivierAlbertini]

Nice! Would be nice to add a test (if not too difficult), perhaps by using the example provided in the issue ?