[resource_detectors] implementation of remaining process attributes

[nikhilbhatia08]

Fixes # (issue)

Changes

implements

• process.command_args
• process.command_line
process.command_args attribute should return a list with command and full list of arguments so changed the implementation of process.command as it should only get the first item that is command from that list.

Please provide a brief description of the changes here.

For significant contributions please make sure you have completed the following items:

• CHANGELOG.md updated for non-trivial changes
• Unit tests have been added
• Changes in public API reviewed

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for opentelemetry-cpp-api-docs canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	a915a3d
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/opentelemetry-cpp-api-docs/deploys/68a8a0b088891f00082eca19

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.05%. Comparing base (6bc8349) to head (7b7ba30).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3603      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.08%   90.05%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         220      220              
  Lines        7081     7081              
==========================================
- Hits         6378     6376       -2     
- Misses        703      705       +2     

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR implements the remaining process attributes process.command_args and process.command_line for the OpenTelemetry resource detector. It refactors the existing command extraction logic to return a vector of command arguments instead of just the command string, enabling proper separation of the command from its arguments.

• Refactored command extraction to return command with arguments as a vector
• Added utility function to convert command arguments vector to command line string
• Updated Windows implementation to use CommandLineToArgvW() for proper argument parsing

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
resource_detectors/include/opentelemetry/resource_detectors/detail/process_detector_utils.h	Updated function signatures and documentation for command argument extraction
resource_detectors/process_detector_utils.cc	Refactored command extraction functions to handle command arguments and added string conversion utility
resource_detectors/process_detector.cc	Updated to use new command argument extraction and populate all three process attributes
resource_detectors/test/process_detector_test.cc	Updated tests to verify command argument extraction and added new test cases

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[lalitb]

Do the specs say anything about scrubbing or masking args that may contain secrets/passwords? Right now we’d be storing and exporting in plain text. Probably worth checking what other language SDKs are doing here too.

[nikhilbhatia08]

@lalitb otel-js and otel-go sdk have process resource detectors and they do not have a filter, but yeah we could implement one.

[lalitb]

@nikhilbhatia08 see if java is doing something - https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aopen-telemetry+process.command+scrub&type=code . Can we add a similar pass here? At least cover the basic cases like --password/secret=<value> or --password/secret <value>. I don’t think there’s a fool-proof way to mask everything, but handling the obvious scenarios would be good.

[nikhilbhatia08]

Yeah we can a filter. Actually when thinking of this we can give the user the choice of what needs to be scrubbed and what not. For example --PASS=some_pass_key --SOME_ARG=some_value then when the user is using the process detector then the user can pass a list of args they want to scrub, so the user for example provides {"PASS"} then we can give the args list as {"--PASS=*****", "--SOME_ARG=some_value"} so that the user has full control over which args they want to scrub and which they want to show. Does this idea look good @lalitb ? And Can this be in another PR?

[lalitb]

Yeah we can a filter. Actually when thinking of this we can give the user the choice of what needs to be scrubbed and what not. For example --PASS=some_pass_key --SOME_ARG=some_value then when the user is using the process detector then the user can pass a list of args they want to scrub, so the user for example provides {"PASS"} then we can give the args list as {"--PASS=*****", "--SOME_ARG=some_value"} so that the user has full control over which args they want to scrub and which they want to show. Does this idea look good @lalitb ? And Can this be in another PR?

Yes, configuring resource keys to be scrubbed as part of this detector ctor would be right fix, as separate PR.

[nikhilbhatia08]

Ready To merge :)

[nikhilbhatia08]

Yeah we can a filter. Actually when thinking of this we can give the user the choice of what needs to be scrubbed and what not. For example --PASS=some_pass_key --SOME_ARG=some_value then when the user is using the process detector then the user can pass a list of args they want to scrub, so the user for example provides {"PASS"} then we can give the args list as {"--PASS=*****", "--SOME_ARG=some_value"} so that the user has full control over which args they want to scrub and which they want to show. Does this idea look good @lalitb ? And Can this be in another PR?

@dbarker what do you think of this idea as a process for sanitization ?

[dbarker]

Yeah we can a filter. Actually when thinking of this we can give the user the choice of what needs to be scrubbed and what not. For example --PASS=some_pass_key --SOME_ARG=some_value then when the user is using the process detector then the user can pass a list of args they want to scrub, so the user for example provides {"PASS"} then we can give the args list as {"--PASS=*****", "--SOME_ARG=some_value"} so that the user has full control over which args they want to scrub and which they want to show. Does this idea look good @lalitb ? And Can this be in another PR?

@dbarker what do you think of this idea as a process for sanitization ?

I like the idea of implementing it in a new PR and moving the design discussion there. How about starting with a proposal in a new issue? We can review the spec and other language SDKs to see if there is any guidance.

[dbarker]

Thanks for the PR @nikhilbhatia08. I am requesting two changes:

1. comment out setting the process-command-args attribute for now until there is a santization feature,
2. remove setting the process-command-line attribute (and utility function) since the spec implies we should not assemble it just for monitoring and should use the process-command-args attribute instead.

[dbarker]

LGTM. Thanks!