Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Andrew Hsu
    @andrewhsu

    Friendly reminder we have otel spec issue scrub 🧽 mtg tomorrow, Friday morning 8:30a PST.

    Not many spec issues to triage, so if we have quorum with collector maintainers, we’ll also continue triaging collector and collector-contrib issues

    Currently, our 3 outstanding P1 trace issues:

    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    wait what, semantic conventions are yaml now... are they published anywhere as not yaml?
    4 replies
    and http status no longer maps to any span status, right? it is only set by the user?
    Tyler Yahn
    @MrAlias

    After a Span is ended, it usually becomes non-recording and thus IsRecording SHOULD consequently return false for ended Spans. Note: Streaming implementations, where it is not known if a span is ended, are one expected case where IsRecording cannot change after ending a Span.

    When implementing this and writing the End method to set the recording state, how do I tell if the span is in a streaming implementation or not?

    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    from the semantic convention for http
    Don't set the span status description if the reason can be inferred from http.status_code.
    I assume this means like if its 404 you don't set the description (status message), but it doesn't make sense since any http status code you can infer the reason...
    what status codes are supposed to have a status.message set
    Justin Foote
    @justinfoote
    I assumed it means that the status message is not necessary if it’s the normal expected message, but if the customer is sending a custom status message, it should be included as an attribute.
    (I’ve worked in a codebase that used these messages to control flow in the client. It was... awful.)
    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    I guess I was thinking about this wrong because I was thinking about it as if it were part of the SDK
    instead of up to each instrumentation. I'm instrumenting a simple web server, so it just doesn't put anything for message. but a more specific HTTP application might set something special as the message for a 404 or whatever
    thanks
    Andrew Hsu
    @andrewhsu

    Following on from our collector SIG issue scrub meetings from last week, we’ve completed:

    Thanks to those who attended (see sig mtg doc).

    Keeping the momentum, I propose 2 more sessions this week:

    • wed 8:30a - 9:00a PST (just before the collector sig mtg)
    • fri 9:00a - 9:30a PST (just after otel spec issue triage mtg)

    Which I’ll add to the otel calendar tomorrow with same people as invitees unless there is a more suitable time slot I should schedule.

    1 reply
    Carlos Alberto Cortez
    @carlosalberto
    Hey, the Spec SIG document has private access. Does anybody has a clue on this? We already had this problem in the past...
    Marcin Grzejszczak
    @marcingrzejszczak
    hi am I correct that there is a spec meeting in 4 minutes?
    John Watson
    @jkwatson
    yes!
    Marcin Grzejszczak
    @marcingrzejszczak
    :+1: will join
    John Watson
    @jkwatson
    Now if only someone will make the meeting notes document public
    Andrew Hsu
    @andrewhsu
    i seem to still have editor access. i’ve changed the doc to be public editable
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan

    @jsuereth here is where the spec says metric labels and span attributes must have identical meanings: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/master/specification/common/common.md#recommendations-for-opentelemetry-authors

    Semantic conventions exist for four areas: for Resource, Span and Log attribute names as well as Metric label keys. In addition, for spans we have two more areas: Event and Link attribute names. Identical namespaces or names in all these areas MUST have identical meanings. For example the http.method span attribute name denotes exactly the same concept as the http.method metric label, has the same data type and the same set of possible values (in both cases it records the value of the HTTP protocol's request method as a string).

    Andrew Hsu
    @andrewhsu
    @tigrannajaryan @bogdandrutu for the collector issue scrub mtg this morning, i’ll need a tech representative to help with the prioritization. would an approver suffice? if not we can talk about at the sig mtg.
    1 reply
    Andrew Hsu
    @andrewhsu
    today i (re)learned the opentelemetry-colllector gitter channel is https://gitter.im/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-service
    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    adding support for excluded urls to an http server integration
    should the context still be extracted even if the url is excluded?
    Omar Eltamasehy
    @oeltamasehy_gitlab

    Dears,
    Appreciate your support for the below issue,
    I built my open telemetry demo as the below steps,

    • I built two microservices one by Django and the another by Go, Django send HTTP request to Go service,
    • Jaeger tool is configured for UI tracing,
    • Unfortunately, Django tracing and Go tracing are separated in Jaeger tool and I do not know the reason although I received Django parent trace id in the request header and it is normal to be all Django request tracing including Go tracing as one request tracing in Jaeger,
      My Git repo: https://github.com/OmarEltamasehy/django-gotracing-example

    Thanks for your time and consideration.

    Bogdan Drutu
    @bogdandrutu
    Hello everyone, I am happy to announce the v0.7.0 release of the specifications. See https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/releases/tag/v0.7.0
    2 replies
    akash19980
    @akash19980
    How we specify when to collect the traces. For example, after every 5th request's traces should be collected. I am using zipkin exporter to export the traces
    13 replies
    Andrew Hsu
    @andrewhsu
    @bogdandrutu from the metrics sig mtg today, we discussed tracking of metrics issues outstanding for otel GA. we don’t have that many spec issues to triage at tomorrows otel spec issue scrub 🧽 at 8:30a PST, so we could use the remaining time to go over the metrics issues. i’ve added to the agenda cc @jmacd
    Bogdan Drutu
    @bogdandrutu
    Sure
    akash19980
    @akash19980
    Is there any way of exporting Otel traces to Elastic Search
    2 replies
    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    crap, just realized, is there a difference between the "noop tracer" and the "no api noop tracer" . I'm finally implementing https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/master/specification/trace/api.md#behavior-of-the-api-in-the-absence-of-an-installed-sdk and realized it could be saying that if there is an SDK but th eno-op tracer is being used then none of this applies?
    or does it (the noop tracer) function the same whether or not an SDK is included?
    Chris Gilbert
    @cg110
    Hi, are there any good examples of when to use what type of Span, and what lifespan they should have. Specifically thinking about requests that become async, where a user requests some activity, we put it in a queue to then do the work, and the start request completes. The code later on complete that work, and the user has an event/polling for the status. The original request/span is done, and I'm not sure if that's a producer/consumer span kind, or if it's a span link, so it's a new trace, but links back to the original request trace.
    It'd also be good to know what's the expectation of span lifetimes, should all spans complete in the lifetime of the root span, I think I saw an example on OpenTracing website where a child span activity was timed-out, but that long child span still complete the span after the parent. Producer/consumer which clearly say that that consumer can be some time later.
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    /@all I’ve scheduled a meeting to further discuss versioning and stability for tomorrow, 8:30am pacific, as that is a eurpoe-friendly timeblock with no other OTel meetings.
    When: 8:30am Pacific, Dec 2nd
    Where: https://zoom.us/j/8203130519
    What: Develop an OTEP to define versioning, stability, and support gurantees for OpenTelemetry.
    Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHlPsMqwrBm7-IIPef9czuM8KFiLbEDMzGhPrmHcppA/edit#
    Please attend, or supply feedback asyncronously in the doc. I can also also schedule another meetings for tomorrow afternoon, if that is needed.
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    There is also a Spec meeting today at 4pm pacific. I’ve added this discussion to that agenda as well.
    So, for people who want to follow along, the roadmap for this versioning and stability proposal:
    • Discussion 4pm Pacific Today Dec 1st
    • Discussion 8:30am Pacific Tomorrow Dec 2nd
    • OTEP submitted friday, Dec 4th
    • OTEP (hopefully) approved by Friday, Dec 11th
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    Once that process is complete, I would like to add versioning and support to the spec, and then create a release that marks tracing as stable, according to those rules.
    Once that is complete, .NET can release “v1.0 or equivalent” and we will make an annoucement as a project.
    For that announcement to happen this year, I believe we must have versioning and support resolved by the 11th.
    Tyler Yahn
    @MrAlias
    :+1:
    Thanks for the breakdown @tedsuo
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    NP!
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    Thank you everyone who attended this morning’s discussion on versioning. A second meeting has been added at 1pm pacific, today, to continue discussion.
    When: 1:00pm Pacific, Dec 2nd
    Where: https://zoom.us/j/8203130519
    What: Develop an OTEP to define versioning, stability, and support gurantees for OpenTelemetry.
    Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHlPsMqwrBm7-IIPef9czuM8KFiLbEDMzGhPrmHcppA/edit#
    Please attend, or supply feedback asyncronously in the doc.
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    That was great. This versioniong proposal is shaping up. It looks like we have our basic guidelines, but we need to understand how well different languages will be able to implement them. Like everything else we spec out, we want broad cross-language agreement but there will still be language-specific details that have to be resolved.
    Ted Young
    @tedsuo
    Just to keep the train rolling, next meeting is tommorrow 8:00am Pacific
    When: 8:00pm Pacific, Dec 2nd
    Where: https://zoom.us/j/8203130519
    What: Develop an OTEP to define versioning, stability, and support gurantees for OpenTelemetry.
    Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QHlPsMqwrBm7-IIPef9czuM8KFiLbEDMzGhPrmHcppA/edit#
    Please attend, or supply feedback asyncronously in the doc.
    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    I think that was supposed to be 8am, Dec 3rd?
    which I just realized this morning its the first thursday of the month :), so I've got a conflict. have a Erlang Ecosystem Foundation Observability working group meeting to run at the same time
    Daniel Dyla
    @dyladan
    yeah i think it starts in just under 2 hours if i understand correctly