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

Make messaging context propagation requirements explicit #2750

Merged

Conversation

joaopgrassi
Copy link
Member

@joaopgrassi joaopgrassi commented Aug 25, 2022

Fixes #2749

Changes

Related OTEP #205

This PR integrates the Context propagation section from the OTEP into the trace messaging semantic conventions.

I did some slight modification on the text, just to give more context on the "problem" and why this change is necessary. The core concept of the OTEP is still maintained of course.

@joaopgrassi joaopgrassi requested review from a team August 25, 2022 11:35
@joaopgrassi joaopgrassi changed the title Make messaging context propagation requirements explict Make messaging context propagation requirements explicit Aug 25, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@lmolkova lmolkova left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left a small comment, but looks good overall!

@reyang reyang added area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions semconv:messaging labels Sep 2, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@pyohannes pyohannes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One small request, otherwise this looks good to me.

Copy link

@dpauls dpauls left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, I'm happy with these changes. I had one small suggestion regarding the term "batch", which would be nice to address, but I am willing to approve even if we don't define the term.

@joaopgrassi joaopgrassi requested review from brunobat, pyohannes and lmolkova and removed request for brunobat September 26, 2022 08:43
CHANGELOG.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@reyang reyang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

Copy link
Contributor

@ppatierno ppatierno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry to be late on this, but I left a comment.

The consumer receives, processes, and settles a message. "Receiving" is the
process of obtaining a message from the intermediary, "processing" is the
process of acting on the information a message contains, "settling" is the
process of notifying an intermediary that a message was processed successfully.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is "settling" really the notification about the message to be processed?
In general, the intermediary is only interested to know that the message was delivered to the consumer so on "receiving" it should be settled.
Processing the message is part of the "contract" between producer and consumer, so that by using a request-reply pattern and a "reply-to" address/queue/topic, the consumer can notify (via a new message) to the producer that the processing happened.

carlosalberto pushed a commit to carlosalberto/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024
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 semconv:messaging
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Integrate OTEP-205 (messaging context propagation requirements) into the spec
10 participants