Add WithOptions to SugaredLogger

[craigpastro]

Closes #1072.

I added a simple test for this feature. One thought to add more comprehensive tests would be to replace the following line in the withSugar function in common_test.go:

withLogger(t, e, opts, func(logger *Logger, logs *observer.ObservedLogs) { f(logger.Sugar(), logs) })

with

withLogger(t, e, nil, func(logger *Logger, logs *observer.ObservedLogs) { f(logger.Sugar().WithOptions(opts...), logs) })

but maybe that is too much. WDYT?

Thank you!

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[abhinav]

Thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1079 (ee70d37) into master (212dcb9) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1079   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.20%   98.21%           
=======================================
  Files          49       49           
  Lines        2120     2123    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits         2082     2085    +3     
  Misses         29       29           
  Partials        9        9           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
sugar.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 212dcb9...ee70d37. Read the comment docs.