-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 821
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
Metric aggregators #1144
Comments
Are you suggesting something like this? |
exactly |
Agreed. |
or I can keep renaming observer to valueobserver and then make necessary changes so that the valueobserver will be the same as in spec, and then |
new metric kinds here: |
@dyladan @mayurkale22 from what I see the spec says nothing about LastValue which is weird or there is a bug. Anyway if we implement all as in spec we don't have possibility of having the LastValue Observer. Because we don't have yet SumObserver and UpDownSumObserver and I just renamed old observer into ValueObserver I will not yet change the aggregator for it from LastValue to SumObserver. If I think about this more I have a feeling that something is missing here. |
I have raised an issue in spec -> open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#636 |
Closing as the issue is no longer applicable. |
Apparent copy/paste error pointed to instrumentation-dns instead of instrumentation-express Co-authored-by: Amir Blum <[email protected]>
Currently our aggregators doesn't follow the naming conventions from spec
The spec describes 2 aggregators:
and we have 3 (countersum, Observer, ValueRecorderExact)
We also have some other differences
Our current Observer is in fact SumObserver
but according to this #1113 I have just changed this to ValueObserver.
We also have this task
#1114
about implementing a SumObserver which in fact is our current observer under valueobserver name
Anyway I want to clean this up
Rename then ValueObserver into SumObserver.
Close the task about creating new SumObserver and create a new task to create a ValueObserver. And then create / rename the aggregators and use them correctly to new spec. I think it would make sense to make it in one PR, unless you have an idea how this could be splited
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: