Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Consume DistributedContextPropagator APIs in DiagnosticsHandler #55392
Consume DistributedContextPropagator APIs in DiagnosticsHandler #55392
Changes from all commits
c6bd75e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I recall OpenTelemetry defines Fields as a hint about which fields would be inspected but not a guarantee. In particular they left the door open that some protocol would have field names dynamically determined so it would be impossible to provide an exhaustive list. Of course in practice I am not aware of any propagator implementation that does this.
If we want to do this we should probably clarify in our API comments that our definition of Fields is strict and we don't support the dynamic shenanigans that OT left the door open to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That would be my preference.
I can't think of a different approach that wouldn't break some scenarios. For example doing the check inside the setter callback and removing the header there instead is too late since instrumentations like AI/Otel may try to add headers before us - we really have to clear the headers in advance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tarekgh - making sure you see this : )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.