Upgrade OTEL version to 1.2#5359
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Krishna Kondaka <krishkdk@amazon.com>
kkondaka
requested review from
KarstenSchnitter,
chenqi0805,
dinujoh,
dlvenable,
engechas,
graytaylor0,
oeyh,
san81,
sb2k16 and
srikanthjg
as code owners
KarstenSchnitter
left a comment
KarstenSchnitter
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for providing that change. I would like to see some integration test using the old protobuf data format. Also, I have questions on the handling of instrumentation scope attributes. See the comments inline for the latter.
| static final String INSTRUMENTATION_LIBRARY_VERSION = "instrumentationLibrary.version"; | ||
| static final String STATUS_CODE = "status.code"; | ||
| static final String STATUS_MESSAGE = "status.message"; | ||
| static final String ATTRIBUTES_KEY = "attributes"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't there be something like instrumentationScope.attributes? These attributes should be handled similar to resource, signal, or event attributes.
| instrumentationScopeAttr.put(INSTRUMENTATION_SCOPE_VERSION, instrumentationScope.getVersion()); | ||
| } | ||
| if (!instrumentationScope.getAttributesList().isEmpty()) { | ||
| instrumentationScopeAttr.put(ATTRIBUTES_KEY, OTelProtoCodec.unpackKeyValueListLog(instrumentationScope.getAttributesList())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think, the attributes should be put under instumentationsScope.attributes and filtered similar to all other attributes: Prefix + Dedotting. Won't this proposed handling add them in a very confusing location and just named attributes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am comparing with the output generated by OTEL and it looks like they are putting it under "scope" like this
"scope": {
"name": "my.library",
"attributes": {
"my.scope.attribute": "some scope attribute"
},
"version": "1.0.0"
},
So, it matches with it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, we need to put with prefix+dedotting for the existing implementation. I guess I got confused with my future implementation.
|
Thanks @KarstenSchnitter. I am not sure if we should support old version. It's been 4 years since the specification is changed |
|
@KarstenSchnitter @dlvenable the tests are not changed (and failing ) because I wanted to get your opinion on this. Forgot to make it a draft PR. |
|
@KarstenSchnitter #5322 is great. I can abandon this PR and approve that. |
2 participants
Description
Update OTEL version to 1.2
Issues Resolved
Resolves #[Issue number to be closed when this PR is merged]
Check List
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.