revert(buffers): invalid metric reporting

[thomasqueirozb]

Reverting this due to the release - will reintroduce in a follow up PR

Vector configuration

NA

How did you test this PR?

NA

Change Type

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Non-functional (chore, refactoring, docs)
• Performance

Is this a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Does this PR include user facing changes?

• Yes. Please add a changelog fragment based on our guidelines.
• No. A maintainer will apply the no-changelog label to this PR.

References

• Related: fix(buffers): Prevent negative buffer size and event gauges #23453
• Related: fix(buffers): buffer_id handling in buffer usage metrics reporting #23507
• Related: enhancement(buffers, metrics): move data counting to the BufferUsage #23518
• Related: chore(buffers): Rework counter/gauge increment handling #23542

Notes

• Please read our Vector contributor resources.
• Do not hesitate to use @vectordotdev/vector to reach out to us regarding this PR.
• Some CI checks run only after we manually approve them.
  • We recommend adding a pre-push hook, please see this template.
  • Alternatively, we recommend running the following locally before pushing to the remote branch:
    • cargo fmt --all
    • cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets -- -D warnings
    • cargo nextest run --workspace (alternatively, you can run cargo test --all)
• After a review is requested, please avoid force pushes to help us review incrementally.
  • Feel free to push as many commits as you want. They will be squashed into one before merging.
  • For example, you can run git merge origin master and git push.
• If this PR introduces changes Vector dependencies (modifies Cargo.lock), please
  run cargo vdev build licenses to regenerate the license inventory and commit the changes (if any). More details here.

[pront]

Thank you. Good call.

[datadog-vectordotdev]

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 08e46d9 | Docs | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!}

[pront]

False alarm per #23542 (comment). The current understanding is that there was no regression and the buffers fix was valid and desired.