Skip to content
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

Adding new required attributes is a breaking change #3283

Closed
lmolkova opened this issue Mar 3, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #3289
Closed

Adding new required attributes is a breaking change #3283

lmolkova opened this issue Mar 3, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #3289
Assignees
Labels
area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions

Comments

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor

lmolkova commented Mar 3, 2023

Discussion: #3225 (comment)

Adding new required attributes cannot be handled with schema transformation and would require a major schema version update.

However, spec allows it:

In addition to the 3 types of changes described above there are certain types
that are always allowed. Such changes do not need to be described (and are not
described) by schema files. Here is the list of such changes:
- Adding new attributes to the existing semantic conventions for resources,
spans, span events or log records.
- Adding new attributes to existing metrics that do not create new timeseries.

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmolkova commented Mar 3, 2023

/ cc @trask @jsuereth

@trask trask assigned trask and unassigned reyang Mar 3, 2023
@trask
Copy link
Member

trask commented Mar 6, 2023

We discussed a proposal in the WG meeting Friday to remove Required attributes, replacing them with Conditionally Required, where "Conditionally Required without condition" means instrumentation from this specification version onward must provide it.

I'm wondering if this is needed after the clarification in #3289. I think "Required" now means "instrumentation for this specification version must provide it", and the schema stability rules govern how that can (or cannot) change in future specification versions.

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmolkova commented Mar 6, 2023

I'm fine closing this and considering it's addressed with #3289

@trask trask closed this as completed Mar 6, 2023
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Blocker for HTTP semconv stability to Done in Semantic Conventions + Instrumentation Stability WG Mar 6, 2023
@trask trask reopened this Mar 7, 2023
jsuereth pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 16, 2023
…braries (#3289)

Based on discussion in semconv stability WG

Closes #3283

## Changes

Clarifies that attribute requirement levels apply to instrumentation.
And that, because users can transform their telemetry in a number of
ways (e.g. metric views, span processors, and collector
transformations), these requirement levels cannot be relied on by
telemetry consumers.

---------

Co-authored-by: Liudmila Molkova <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Bogdan Drutu <[email protected]>
carlosalberto pushed a commit to carlosalberto/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2024
…braries (open-telemetry#3289)

Based on discussion in semconv stability WG

Closes open-telemetry#3283

## Changes

Clarifies that attribute requirement levels apply to instrumentation.
And that, because users can transform their telemetry in a number of
ways (e.g. metric views, span processors, and collector
transformations), these requirement levels cannot be relied on by
telemetry consumers.

---------

Co-authored-by: Liudmila Molkova <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Bogdan Drutu <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions
3 participants