Add ability to configure mappings from fluent attributes to otel fields #5173
Conversation
| return errors.New("`endpoint` not specified") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /*if c.BodyAsString == nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How to test if the config is defined or not to have a default value ?
| }*/ | ||
|
|
||
| if len(c.Mappings.Body) == 0 { | ||
| c.Mappings.Body = []string{"log", "message"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Default value for retrocompatibility.
Both log or message will be considered as "body" value
| Here is a basic example config that makes the receiver listen on all interfaces | ||
| on port 8006: | ||
|
|
||
| ```yaml | ||
| receivers: | ||
| fluentforward: | ||
| endpoint: 0.0.0.0:8006 | ||
| body_as_string: true | ||
| mappings: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If anyone has a better idea / strategy about these mapping I take it. It makes the job but I have the feeling that it's not ideal.
But what I think is the concept could be reused on other receivers where underlying technology doesn't fit with all OTEL concepts.
| attrs := lr.Attributes() | ||
| bodyMap := lr.Body().MapVal() | ||
| lr.SetName("fluent[d|bit]") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Arbitrary name to provide something in name (I think otel collector should at least show the good exemple)
| default: | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("cannot convert message type %T to string", val) | ||
| } | ||
| s, err := ValueToString(val) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To move into if Contains(conf.Mappings.Severity, key)
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if Contains(conf.Mappings.Body, key) { | ||
| insertToAttributeMap(key, val, &bodyMap) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By simplicity, I try to do the best to convert a maximum of fields in the body, se I work on body attributemap instead of string value.
| } else { | ||
| insertToAttributeMap(key, val, &attrs) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| if conf.BodyAsString { | ||
| lr.Body().SetStringVal(lr.Body().AsString()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the user prefers a string body, we convert it here.
This will change a little the actual behavior, for a basic use case where you convert the log field to body we will have something like {"log": "raw string"} (really not sure about the output format of lr.Body().AsString()) instead of raw string
Any concern about that or the encoding choice ?
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
Anyone to review or help me to fix tests ? |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
Closed as inactive. Feel free to reopen if this PR is still being worked on. |
Description:
Help to solve : #14718
This change allow to create a very basic mapping as kind of whitelist
You can "move" an attribute data to severyty text if the key is found, or "move" attributes to structured body data (attributemap).
Then, if you prefer a string body you can convert it.
Testing:
Nothing for now
Documentation:
Some notes about the new mappings