-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 762
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
opentelemetry: Add PreSampledTracer interface #962
Merged
+155
−128
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Next
Next commit
opentelemetry: Add PreSampledTracer interface
## Motivation Currently the `OpenTelemetryLayer` is coupled to the opentelemetry SDK in a way that makes using alternate API implementations difficult (they would have to use the SDK's sampler and id generator) as well as causing duplication when specifying sampler configuration (it must currently be set on both the tracer provider configuration as well as the layer configuration, which is difficult to remember to keep in sync). ## Solution This change creates an interface for working with pre-sampled tracers, and implements it for the current opentelemetry SDK. This simplifies the layer as it no longer needs to track an id generator or sampler, and allows other otel API implementations to implement the trait rather than rely on the current SDK.
commit 79e915265d20f11951599e044b2a205f8b6e500e
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a breaking API change --- does it make sense to leave the
new
constructor as-is, and add a new constructor that takes just a tracer, or does that not make sense?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could keep as is for a deprecation cycle, the sampler is no longer needed but the method could still accept one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually deprecation isn't really what we want here unless we want another name, but
with_tracer
already exists. Maybe best to just go with the breaking change as it is trivial to not include the parameter and it would only be called once during initialization.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, I'm fine with the breaking change if it's the best option.