Skip to content

Add specs for empty telemetry envelopes.#622

Merged
reyang merged 4 commits intoopen-telemetry:mainfrom
djspinmonkey:empty_telemetry_envelopes
Feb 26, 2025
Merged

Add specs for empty telemetry envelopes.#622
reyang merged 4 commits intoopen-telemetry:mainfrom
djspinmonkey:empty_telemetry_envelopes

Conversation

@djspinmonkey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Based on the discussion here, this PR adds some guidelines for handling empty telemetry envelopes. (Specifically, that they should generally be avoided and may be dropped.)

This is my first PR to the OTel spec, so please let me know if there's a better place to put this or I missed any steps of the process!

@djspinmonkey djspinmonkey requested a review from a team February 10, 2025 18:56
@linux-foundation-easycla
Copy link
Copy Markdown

linux-foundation-easycla Bot commented Feb 10, 2025

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

@cijothomas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

CLA Not Signed

@djspinmonkey A mandatory pre-requisite for contributions to OTel is to sign the EasyCLA. Could you follow the link and make sure it is done.. (If contributing on behalf of an employer, you may want to consult them too)

https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/main/guides/contributor/CLA.md

@djspinmonkey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks, I just filled that out! :-)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if a better place for this comment is in proto files, e.g. as a comment of the mesage:

Comment thread docs/specification.md Outdated
@djspinmonkey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

In terms of the placement, I'm not sure about putting this in the metrics proto, since it's not specific to metrics - it would apply equally to logs or traces. It also doesn't really feel like a detail of the protobuff format to me, since it mostly applies (at least in my use case) to resources being processed that have already been hydrated into in-memory structs, rather than anything about the line format.

That said, of course if that's where you think it should go, I'm happy to move it. Would you want it copied out into all three of metrics, logs, and traces protos if so?

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

In terms of the placement, I'm not sure about putting this in the metrics proto, since it's not specific to metrics - it would apply equally to logs or traces.

What we do currently is just copy/paste the same comment to all signals. Not great, I agree, but that's the current practice.

I don't have a strong opinion on the placement. Let's see others think.

@djspinmonkey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Just following up here, are there any other changes folks would like to see before merging? I can copy it out into the three protobuff files, if that's the preference.

@djspinmonkey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Looks like this has been approved, are there any other steps needed before merging? I'm happy to do anything needed, but of course I don't have the permissions to push the button myself. 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants