-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
Document clarity re: sampling_priority configuration #30410
Comments
Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
The
I agree this could be made more clear in the README, a PR would be welcomed! |
**Description:** Originally I was going to just fix the typo `designed`->`designated`, but the whole comment was hard to read so I re-worded it. Found while investigating #30410 Co-authored-by: Alex Boten <[email protected]>
Should this be closed? |
I don't think so, my PR was mostly unrelated to this. We still need to update the README to close this, from my understanding. |
…telemetry#30739) **Description:** Originally I was going to just fix the typo `designed`->`designated`, but the whole comment was hard to read so I re-worded it. Found while investigating open-telemetry#30410 Co-authored-by: Alex Boten <[email protected]>
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
@kentquirk , would you be able to transform your comment in documentation at the readme for the component? |
This issue has been inactive for 60 days. It will be closed in 60 days if there is no activity. To ping code owners by adding a component label, see Adding Labels via Comments, or if you are unsure of which component this issue relates to, please ping Pinging code owners:
See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
This issue has been closed as inactive because it has been stale for 120 days with no activity. |
Component(s)
processor/probabilisticsampler
Describe the issue you're reporting
It's not very clear how the sampling_priority configuration in the probabilistic_sampler is intended to work.
The readme bullet point for this processor just above the Hashing heading states:
which is somewhat ambiguous - is this meant to be a string (i.e. an attribute name as stated) or a int between 0 and 100?
My initial expectation based on the readme and the example config here was that this setting works in tandem with the from_attribute to provide some sort of override mechanism to the blanket sampling rate. i.e:
Which would suggest that if the data included the attribute "foo" that it'd be sampled at 100%
However testdata/config.yaml#L43 implies that another attribute name is used to drive the sampling_priority. I have no idea how this would work if the attribute value is itself a string?
I'd be happy to contribute wording updates based on your advise about which way this is intended to function.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: