WIP: baggage weblog tests

[rachelyangdog]

Motivation

Changes

Workflow

1. ⚠️ Create your PR as draft ⚠️
2. Work on you PR until the CI passes (if something not related to your task is failing, you can ignore it)
3. Mark it as ready for review
   • Test logic is modified? -> Get a review from RFC owner. We're working on refining the codeowners file quickly.
   • Framework is modified, or non obvious usage of it -> get a review from R&P team

🚀 Once your PR is reviewed, you can merge it!

🛟 #apm-shared-testing 🛟

Reviewer checklist

• If PR title starts with [<language>], double-check that only <language> is impacted by the change
• No system-tests internal is modified. Otherwise, I have the approval from R&P team
• CI is green, or failing jobs are not related to this change (and you are 100% sure about this statement)
• A docker base image is modified?
  • the relevant build-XXX-image label is present
• A scenario is added (or removed)?
  • Get a review from R&P team

[zacharycmontoya]

Can we assert that the value in the output is unchanged?

Suggested change

	assert "baggage" in data["request_headers"]
	assert data["request_headers"]["baggage"] == "foo=bar"

[zacharycmontoya]

Can we re-use the default scenario (no DD_TRACE_PROPAGATION_STYLE configuration) instead of adding a new scenario? We should re-use scenarios as much as possible because each scenario adds the overhead of running the agent container, weblog containers, and various test proxies