Skip to content

Alternative Logger option #12289

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
bogdandrutu wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Alternative Logger option #12289

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions component/telemetry.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ import (
"go.opentelemetry.io/otel/metric"
"go.opentelemetry.io/otel/trace"
"go.uber.org/zap"
"go.uber.org/zap/zapcore"

"go.opentelemetry.io/collector/pdata/pcommon"
)
Expand All @@ -26,3 +27,12 @@ type TelemetrySettings struct {
// Resource contains the resource attributes for the collector's telemetry.
Resource pcommon.Resource
}

func (ts *TelemetrySettings) LoggerWithout(fields ...string) *zap.Logger {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@djaglowski djaglowski Feb 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Adding this method does make usage cleaner for component authors, which is very nice.

That said, I think it is necessary to expose the interface in this package as well in order to allow reasonable type assertions elsewhere, such as testing the actual implementation of the logger.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@bogdandrutu bogdandrutu Feb 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That said, I think it is necessary to expose the interface in this package as well in order to allow reasonable type assertions elsewhere, such as testing the actual implementation of the logger.

Not sure about that, you can have the interface in other place if needed. Example in golang "errors", the Unwrap is not an interface, see

https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.23.5:src/errors/wrap.go;l=17

I do believe that if we don't expose an interface, we need to have this as "optional", meaning we need to check if it implements what we want to implement, otherwise return the same logger probably...

return ts.Logger.WithOptions(zap.WrapCore(func(core zapcore.Core) zapcore.Core {
wc := core.(interface {
Without(fields ...string) zapcore.Core
})
return wc.Without(fields...)
Comment thread
bogdandrutu marked this conversation as resolved.
}))
}
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions receiver/otlpreceiver/otlp.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ type otlpReceiver struct {
// responsibility to invoke the respective Start*Reception methods as well
// as the various Stop*Reception methods to end it.
func newOtlpReceiver(cfg *Config, set *receiver.Settings) (*otlpReceiver, error) {
set.Logger = set.TelemetrySettings.LoggerWithout(componentattribute.SignalKey)
set.Logger.Debug("created signal-agnostic logger")
r := &otlpReceiver{
cfg: cfg,
nextTraces: nil,
Expand Down