-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
Split pdata package by telemetry signal type #5087
Conversation
58f49f9
to
9d76f9a
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5087 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.34% 90.14% -0.20%
==========================================
Files 182 183 +1
Lines 11031 11022 -9
==========================================
- Hits 9966 9936 -30
- Misses 840 864 +24
+ Partials 225 222 -3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
9d76f9a
to
00bf3e9
Compare
449d4b5
to
c8471e8
Compare
c8471e8
to
f28481b
Compare
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.
I like this, except the split of consumer which is out of scope for the pdata split.
f28481b
to
4f48b62
Compare
Removed the split of consumer |
9230a4f
to
4b2a570
Compare
e153289
to
7b6470e
Compare
7b6470e
to
c8df699
Compare
@open-telemetry/collector-maintainers please review |
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.
Overall this looks good, just a couple of comments
c8df699
to
bfb7a9c
Compare
07f23e2
to
e1f15ac
Compare
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.
LGTM.
I think in our discussions we can continue referring to the internal data collectively as pdata
even when it is totally eliminated from the codebase. It is a convenient and catchy name.
I agree on using
@open-telemetry/collector-approvers please share you feedback if you think it'll be better. |
This approach works for me too. No strong opinion one way or another. |
@dmitryax @tigrannajaryan what about a |
I was also thinking about it. It means that we need to move |
We have other packages in |
See #5027
Besides semconv nothing after we fix #5027 |
This is how I think of it as well. It seems sufficiently different from OTLP, even if it is presently implemented as an API for managing an OTLP representation, that I think we should be careful about intermixing the concepts too much. |
e1f15ac
to
762e945
Compare
Looks like we have an agreement on how to merge
If everyone is ok with this structure, I'm going to proceed with the following action items:
|
I tried a RP for (1) item #5161. It works but introduces interdependencies between go.opentelemetry.io/collector and go.opentelemetry.io/collector/model modules. So I'd rather update this PR in a different way to avoid the interdependencies but use more aliasing for the deprecated APIs. |
It appeared to be pretty difficult to do what we agreed on by the steps that I outlined without introducing interdependencies between modules. To make it in a clean way, splitting of all the pdata related parts into a new module has to be done in one shot. I submitted another PR for that instead of reusing this one: #5168 |
This is an alternative to #4918 with the following package structure: