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

Support "service" tag #936

Closed
yurishkuro opened this issue Jul 14, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Support "service" tag #936

yurishkuro opened this issue Jul 14, 2018 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement help wanted Features that maintainers are willing to accept but do not have cycles to implement

Comments

@yurishkuro
Copy link
Member

Rebooking from jaegertracing/jaeger-client-java#490.

Requirement - what kind of business use case are you trying to solve?

OpenTracing specification added service tags: opentracing/specification@f7ca62c

Problem - what in Jaeger blocks you from solving the requirement?

There's no special handing for the service tag in Jaeger right now.

Proposal - what do you suggest to solve the problem or improve the existing situation?

Add an adjuster (https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/tree/master/model/adjuster) that will read the service tag from the span and update the span.process.serviceName field.

Any open questions to address

As I mentioned (opentracing/specification#77 (comment)) previously, Jaeger tracers use multiple attributes in the Process object to identify the service. The service tag only overrides the service name, but attributes like process.tags["ip"] will be set to the IP of the process creating the span (e.g. a service mesh). This might be confusing when looking at the traces in the UI, or worse it could affect some other logic like the clock skew adjustment.

@yurishkuro yurishkuro added the help wanted Features that maintainers are willing to accept but do not have cycles to implement label Jul 14, 2018
@jpkrohling
Copy link
Contributor

cc @mustafaakin it's yours, if you want to work on it :)

@mustafaakin
Copy link

I am working on it @jpkrohling thanks!

@quaff
Copy link

quaff commented Oct 15, 2018

Any updates?

@objectiser
Copy link
Contributor

I think we may want to hold off on this until we know the outcome of opentracing/specification#131

@pavolloffay
Copy link
Member

The referenced PR mostly changes OT API. The processing on the server side would be probably similar/the same as what we have previously discussed here. The open question is what tag will we use as the proposed API allows to use basically an arbitrary tag.

@yurishkuro
Copy link
Member Author

The service tag has been pulled out of OT Spec.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement help wanted Features that maintainers are willing to accept but do not have cycles to implement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants