Inject meta tags in Tracing-without-Performance-mode

[AbhiPrasad]

Extracted from #8352 as standalone task. Make sure tracing without performance works for injecting meta tags.

We should gate this with a new boolean option.

### Tasks
- [x] https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/pull/13134
- [ ] https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/pull/13201
- [ ] https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/issues/13106
- [ ] https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/issues/13303
- [x] [Nuxt] Inject meta tags in Tracing-without-Performance-mode
- [x] [SolidStart] Inject meta tags in Tracing-without-Perfomance-mode
- [x] [Remix] Inject meta tags in Tracing-without-Performance-mode

[lforst]

@AbhiPrasad What exactly needs to be done here? I would like to do this for Next.js but don't fully understand the task.

[AbhiPrasad]

Right now we only inject meta tags if there is a sampled transaction/span. It would be great if we can remove this condition and inject meta tags based on the propagation context.

Same conditional logic like we have for undici:

sentry-javascript/packages/node/src/integrations/undici/index.ts

Lines 175 to 185 in 530f786

	if (span) {
	const dynamicSamplingContext = span?.transaction?.getDynamicSamplingContext();
	const sentryBaggageHeader = dynamicSamplingContextToSentryBaggageHeader(dynamicSamplingContext);
	setHeadersOnRequest(request, span.toTraceparent(), sentryBaggageHeader);
	} else {
	const { traceId, sampled, dsc } = scope.getPropagationContext();
	const sentryTrace = generateSentryTraceHeader(traceId, undefined, sampled);
	const dynamicSamplingContext = dsc || getDynamicSamplingContextFromClient(traceId, client, scope);
	const sentryBaggageHeader = dynamicSamplingContextToSentryBaggageHeader(dynamicSamplingContext);
	setHeadersOnRequest(request, sentryTrace, sentryBaggageHeader);

[lforst]

Got it. Thanks!

[lforst]

@AbhiPrasad I wonder if this will screw with the trace view in replays a lot. This would essentially cause browser sessions of multiple different users to be grouped together under one server process 🤔 Maybe this is not what we want at all...

[s1gr1d]

Closing this because it has been implemented