-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
[receiver/prometheusreceiver] Add version and name to metrics #20903
Merged
dmitryax
merged 2 commits into
open-telemetry:main
from
n3rdkube:feat/prometheusReceiverVersions
Apr 17, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ | ||
# One of 'breaking', 'deprecation', 'new_component', 'enhancement', 'bug_fix' | ||
change_type: enhancement | ||
|
||
# The name of the component, or a single word describing the area of concern, (e.g. filelogreceiver) | ||
component: prometheusreceiver | ||
|
||
# A brief description of the change. Surround your text with quotes ("") if it needs to start with a backtick (`). | ||
note: All receivers are setting receiver name and version when sending data. This change introduces the same behaviour to the prometheus receiver. | ||
|
||
# One or more tracking issues related to the change | ||
issues: [20902] | ||
|
||
# (Optional) One or more lines of additional information to render under the primary note. | ||
# These lines will be padded with 2 spaces and then inserted directly into the document. | ||
# Use pipe (|) for multiline entries. | ||
subtext: |
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
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.
You could consider adding a
scope
field to thetransaction
struct, and initializing the it innewTransaction
. Then you could copy thescope
here instead of recreating it each time. For example:then here you can:
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.
Hello! That would be another option, however, the implementation would be different from the one of any other receiver. Do you think that there is a performance improvement justifying a different implementation? 😄
As far as I understand
.Scope()
does not create a new scope, but it returns the corresponding one to set Name and Versions.It is true that a copy is just one action, and setting Name and Version would be two, but the difference should be negligible, and the library of the copy is calling as well SetName and SetVersion under the hood.
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.
Currrent implementation
Proposed 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.
It seems negligible at best. I'm happy with the current implementation.