feat(teler): add `listen_addr` & `caller` fields in the log

[dwisiswant0]

IMPORTANT: Please do not create a PR without creating an issue first!

(Any change needs to be discussed before proceeding. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of the pull request).

Summary

feat(teler): add listen_addr & caller fields in the log

Proposed of changes

This PR fixes/implements the following bugs/features:

• Bug 1
• Bug 2
• Feature 1
• Feature 2
• Breaking changes

How has this been tested?

Proof:

go1.19 test -v -race -count=1 -run=^TestNewWithLogFile$ ./...
cat /tmp/teler-test.log | jq

{
  "level": "warn",
  "ts": 1717703738.552389,
  "msg": "bad crawler",
  "id": "0c1de9f7aff7f6be51c5",
  "category": "BadCrawler",
  "caller": "teler-waf",
  "listen_addr": "*********:36267",
  "request": {
    "method": "GET",
    "path": "/",
    "ip_addr": "*********",
    "headers": {
      "Accept-Encoding": [
        "gzip"
      ],
      "User-Agent": [
        "Go-http-client/1.1"
      ]
    },
    "body": ""
  }
}

Closing issues

Fixes #

Checklist:

• [x] My code follows the code style of this project.
• [x] My changes successfully ran and pass linters locally (run make lint).
• [x] I have written new tests for my changes.
  • [x] My changes successfully ran and pass tests locally.
• [x] My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • [x] I have updated the documentation accordingly.

[dwisiswant0]

decisions:

1. why do I go with caching when calling getListenAddr? well after putting it through some benchmarking, I saw it was doing 3 allocs per op w/o any caching. fetching local addresses was turning out to be a bit of a performance hog, so i figured caching would smooth (cut down that overhead) things out and make everything run way more efficiently.
2. since it (d34ca96) required by (1), refactoring to initialize (root) cache no matter what the Options.Development value does NOT really have any downsides. :shrug:

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.85714% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.64%. Comparing base (20b5e7c) to head (18f804e). Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
utils.go	90.00%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #194 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 78.47% 78.64% +0.16% ========================================== Files 12 12 Lines 920 932 +12 ========================================== + Hits 722 733 +11 - Misses 131 132 +1 Partials 67 67 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.