-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 890
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
Semantic conventions for Instrumentation Scope Attributes #2682
Comments
This is part of the Scope initiative. Triaging as accepted. |
Important questions to answer:
|
I think the answer should be yes (namespaces are different), although we should try and avoid unnecessary collisions where possible to reduce confusion. I believe this is the same answer as the separation between resource vs trace/metric/log attributes.
I'd prefer if it was exclusively something that describes the scope and not telemetry within the scope. It would make aggregation of telemetry more complex if it was considered equivalent for an attribute to either be present in the scope, or present in all telemetry within the scope.
I'd prefer starting without any signal-specific attributes. We can always add them later if we have need to introduce such a concept. |
The question of namespaces and scope attributes appearing in different places (resource, span) is highly relevant for #2535. I guess whatever we come up with here, needs to be at least considered on how it is mapped to non-otlp exporters. |
This unblocks #2702 by making the changes introduced in open-telemetry/build-tools#114 available for use. It also allows for more semantic conventions for scope attributes to be defined in the future (#2682). See https://github.com/open-telemetry/build-tools/releases/tag/v0.14.0.
This unblocks open-telemetry#2702 by making the changes introduced in open-telemetry/build-tools#114 available for use. It also allows for more semantic conventions for scope attributes to be defined in the future (open-telemetry#2682). See https://github.com/open-telemetry/build-tools/releases/tag/v0.14.0.
What are you trying to achieve?
Scope attributes were introduced in #2579 with the motivations behind it described in this OTEP. A first motivation was to have an attribute to hold a instrumentation scope "short name"
What did you expect to see?
Clearly defined semantic conventions around scope attributes so instrumentation/back-ends can rely/do things with it in a consistent manner.
Additional context.
I did some experimentation with the build-tools and how we would auto-generate the conventions tables, the same way we do for the rest today. You can see my attempt in this diff: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/compare/main...dynatrace-oss-contrib:opentelemetry-specification:feature/scope_attributes_semconv?expand=1
My idea behind it was:
YAML
file insemantic_conventions/common/scope.yaml
generating a.md
file inspecification/common/scope.md
.YAML
file insemantic_conventions/metrics/scope-metrics.yaml
generating a.md
file inspecification/metrics/semantic_conventions/scope-metrics.md
Those would give us:
scope.*
e.g.scope.short_name
scope_metrics.*
e.g.scope_metrics.my_meter_attribute
cc @dashpole @tigrannajaryan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: