-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Remove mapping for process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration
#213
Conversation
newCountWithHost(newDims("jvm.gc.parnew.time.sum"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), 0, fallbackHostname), | ||
newGaugeWithHost(newDims("jvm.gc.parnew.time.min"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), -100, fallbackHostname), | ||
newGaugeWithHost(newDims("jvm.gc.parnew.time.max"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), 100, fallbackHostname), | ||
newCountWithHost(newDims("process.runtime.jvm.threads.count.count"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), 100, fallbackHostname), |
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 like we are removing the mapping from process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration
to jvm.gc.parnew.time
, not sure how metric process.runtime.jvm.threads.count.count
fit in to this change ?
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.
Or are you just adding more test cases which are unrelated ? If this is the case then LGTM, just want to make sure I'm not missing something :)
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.
Yeah just adding more test cases that are unrelated, this test was failing since we removed the mapping so I changed it to a different mapping name to keep the same test for histograms.
**Description:** <Describe what has changed.> <!--Ex. Fixing a bug - Describe the bug and how this fixes the issue. Ex. Adding a feature - Explain what this achieves.--> Bump opentelemetry-mapping-go modules to v0.9.0. This includes: - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/218 and DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/220 - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/219 - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/213 - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/202
…9785) **Description:** <Describe what has changed.> <!--Ex. Fixing a bug - Describe the bug and how this fixes the issue. Ex. Adding a feature - Explain what this achieves.--> Bump opentelemetry-mapping-go modules to v0.9.0. This includes: - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/218 and DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/220 - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/219 - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/213 - DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/202
What does this PR do?
Removes runtime metric mapping for
process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration
->jvm.gc.parnew.time
.Motivation
This mapping was causing problems due to the distribution overshadowing behavior in the backend. This is because
process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration
is an OTel histogram which gets converted to a DD distribution under the name ofjvm.gc.parnew.time
. This results in olderjvm.gc.parnew.time
values getting overridden because they're of type gauge.