-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 896
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
Add Resource browser attributes #2353
Add Resource browser attributes #2353
Conversation
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
a5e0401
to
14557c0
Compare
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
Closed as inactive. Feel free to reopen if this PR is still being worked on. |
This is pending on the discussion in #2466. |
@arminru I think these attributes are needed independently of #2466, as we need some way of capturing information about browsers. The attributes are now updated to match user-agent client hints (low-entropy), which cannot be captured in the Whether we use presence of these attributes to classify browser telemetry can be a separate discussion. I originally combined those two topics in this PR, but now realize that it may just confuse the matter. I can update the description of the PR and perhaps remove the part about device attributes? |
I think the |
Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>
Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>
0dc9a3e
to
f0f65a6
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.
Seems fine to me. Using newer APIs means it will continue being relevant for a longer time than the old APIs even if coverage isn't great right now (missing in at least firefox and safari). The newer APIs are also clearer than the old user agent.
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 from a general spec/semconv POV. Thank you, @martinkuba!
I'll rely on the Client instrumentation/RUM SIG to asses the suitability of the proposed values and their sources.
Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>
@yurishkuro This PR needs one more approval before it can be merged. Can you please take a look? |
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
@open-telemetry/specs-approvers Please review before we merge ;) |
This is the same as #2115, except it only adds
browser
attributes. It does not include the addition ofapp
attributes as in #2115.