Add record descriptor name to Elastic writer exception message

[JSCU-CNI]

This PR improves the exception message thrown when the Elastic adapter attempts to write documents that get rejected by the remote Elasticsearch server.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 83.50%. Comparing base (9775ddb) to head (f3906ff).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
flow/record/adapter/elastic.py	77.77%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #178      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.25%   83.50%   +1.25%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        3652     3608      -44     
==========================================
+ Hits         3004     3013       +9     
+ Misses        648      595      -53     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	83.50% <77.77%> (+1.25%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[yunzheng]

Oops, I remember reviewing this PR but it seems I forgot to add my actual review notes.

I was thinking maybe we can use Exception.add_note() here, that could be more clean. See also:

• https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/errors.html#enriching-exceptions-with-notes
• https://daniel.feldroy.com/posts/til-2025-05-exception-add_note

However, this is a feature introduced in Python 3.11 but we still support Python 3.10 until EOL (2026-10). Luckily there is a backport package called exceptiongroup that we can use until we drop support.

Is this something you can explore for this PR? If not, i'm also happy to check.

[JSCU-CNI]

I was thinking maybe we can use Exception.add_note() here, that could be more clean.

That looks like a clean solution! As long as the message in the test is exposed we're happy.

Is this something you can explore for this PR? If not, i'm also happy to check.

Due to limited resources currently not unfortunately.