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

Container image doesn't export http receiver 4318 #692

Closed
abraxxa opened this issue Oct 10, 2024 · 9 comments · Fixed by #702
Closed

Container image doesn't export http receiver 4318 #692

abraxxa opened this issue Oct 10, 2024 · 9 comments · Fixed by #702
Labels
artifact:docker bug Something isn't working good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@abraxxa
Copy link

abraxxa commented Oct 10, 2024

The Perl OpenTelemetry::Exporter::OTLP module currently only supports the http protocol and not grpc.
The config enables the http receiver but the Dockerfile doesn't expose it.
Why?

Copy link

dosubot bot commented Oct 10, 2024

Hey @abraxxa! 👋 I'm here to help you with bug fixes, answer your questions, and assist you in becoming a contributor. Let's squash those bugs together!

The otelcol-contrib Dockerfile exposes ports 4317, 55678, and 55679, but it does not explicitly expose port 4318, which is used by the HTTP receiver in the configuration [1]. You might need to modify the Dockerfile to include EXPOSE 4318 to ensure the HTTP receiver is accessible.

To continue talking to Dosu, mention @dosu.

@dosubot dosubot bot added artifact:docker bug Something isn't working labels Oct 10, 2024
@mowies
Copy link
Member

mowies commented Oct 17, 2024

The dockerfile EXPOSE statement is more for documentation than anything else (see dockerfile docs). So it doesn't actually impact whatever the collector listens to in the container.

But I agree that it should still be aligned for consistency.

@abraxxa
Copy link
Author

abraxxa commented Oct 17, 2024

FYI the Docker Desktop UI lets you only expose ports that are specified in the Dockerfile with EXPOSE. Using the CLI was my workaround.

@mowies
Copy link
Member

mowies commented Oct 17, 2024

Ah ok I'm not that familiar with the UI :)
Then it should definitely be updated

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member

mx-psi commented Oct 17, 2024

@abraxxa would you be willing to file a PR for this? We can help you get it into the right shape so we can merge it :)

@abraxxa
Copy link
Author

abraxxa commented Oct 17, 2024

I think the time you spend on reviewing the PR is about the same as if you commit it yourself ;-)
But if you want it for some other reason I can do it.

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member

mx-psi commented Oct 17, 2024

I think the time you spend on reviewing the PR is about the same as if you commit it yourself ;-) But if you want it for some other reason I can do it.

Just wanted to encourage to contribute yourself 😄 no other reason

@mx-psi mx-psi added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Oct 17, 2024
@mowies
Copy link
Member

mowies commented Oct 17, 2024

i can do it as well 🤷🏼

@mowies
Copy link
Member

mowies commented Oct 22, 2024

@abraxxa @mx-psi PR is open

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
artifact:docker bug Something isn't working good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
3 participants