-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 773
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
Can't inject resource detectors after upgrading to 1.4.0-rc.3
#4139
Comments
Hey @austindrenski thanks for this issue! I opened a PR to try and get the AddDetector factory overload back into the public API. Need to see what the other maintainers think, hopefully they will support it 😄 If you want to unblock yourself on the 1.4 rc.3 API (which removed ConfigureBuilder) you can always put back the functionality using extensions in your own code. Like this: namespace OpenTelemetry.Trace
{
public static class MyOpenTelemetryTracerProviderBuilderExtensions
{
public static TracerProviderBuilder ConfigureBuilder(
this TracerProviderBuilder builder,
Action<IServiceProvider, TracerProviderBuilder> configure)
{
// Note: When using OpenTelemetry SDK this will always be true starting with 1.4.
if (builder is IDeferredTracerProviderBuilder deferredTracerProviderBuilder)
{
deferredTracerProviderBuilder.Configure(configure);
}
return builder;
}
}
}
namespace OpenTelemetry.Metrics
{
public static class MyOpenTelemetryMeterProviderBuilderExtensions
{
public static MeterProviderBuilder ConfigureBuilder(
this MeterProviderBuilder builder,
Action<IServiceProvider, MeterProviderBuilder> configure)
{
// Note: When using OpenTelemetry SDK this will always be true starting with 1.4.
if (builder is IDeferredMeterProviderBuilder deferredMeterProviderBuilder)
{
deferredMeterProviderBuilder.Configure(configure);
}
return builder;
}
}
} |
Hey, I also was hit by this change. In my case I'm working around the missing support of builder.ConfigureBuilder((provider, providerBuilder) =>
{
var options = provider.GetRequiredService<IOptionsMonitor<EntityFrameworkInstrumentationOptions>>();
providerBuilder.AddEntityFrameworkCoreInstrumentation(o =>
{
o.SetDbStatementForText = options.CurrentValue.SetDbStatementForText;
o.SetDbStatementForStoredProcedure = options.CurrentValue.SetDbStatementForStoredProcedure;
});
}); The provided workaround does the job, but I wanted to give you another example where this method was useful. |
I had the same issue while upgrading from 1.0.0 to 1.4.0. My usecase if very similar to @gao-artur 's one serviceCollection.AddOpenTelemetryTracing(b =>
{
b.Configure((serviceProvider, builder) =>
{
var tracingConfiguration = serviceProvider.GetService<IOptionsMonitor<TracingConfiguration>>();
...
builder.AddAspNetCoreInstrumentation(...);
}
} However this workaround does not seems to work for me as I am getting this error:
This used to work 😢 |
You can do this instead now. builder.Services.ConfigureOpenTelemetryTracerProvider((sp, tp) => {
var tracingConfiguration = sp.GetService<IOptionsMonitor<TracingConfiguration>>();
...
builder.AddAspNetCoreInstrumentation(...);
}); where One thing to keep in mind is that it won't update based on |
@ogxd Can you share a little bit more about your use case? Are you trying to enable/disable aspnetcore instrumentation based on configuration? We don't have a great story yet for enabling/disabling the SDK or individual components. But you could make your own extension sort of like this... appBuilder.AddOpenTelemetry();
public static class MyAppBuilderExtensions
{
public static WebApplicationBuilder AddOpenTelemetry(this WebApplicationBuilder appBuilder)
{
var configuration = new OpenTelemetryConfiguration();
appBuilder.Configuration.GetSection("OpenTelemetry").Bind(configuration);
if (configuration.EnableTracing)
{
appBuilder.Services.AddOpenTelemetry()
.WithTracing(builder =>
{
if (configuration.EnableAspNetCoreInstrumentation)
{
appBuilder.Services.Configure<AspNetCoreInstrumentationOptions>(
appBuilder.Configuration.GetSection("OpenTelemetry:AspNetCoreOptions"));
builder.AddAspNetCoreInstrumentation();
}
});
}
return appBuilder;
}
}
public sealed class OpenTelemetryConfiguration
{
public bool EnableTracing { get; set; }
public bool EnableAspNetCoreInstrumentation { get; set; }
} |
@CodeBlanch Yes this is what I used to do. Thanks a lot for the code snippet I'll see if I can get around my issue with this. I'm sure it will be useful for others as well 😄 |
Bug Report
This morning I started integrating last night's release of
1.4.0-rc.3
and quickly encountered some trouble caused by the removal ofConfigureBuilder(...)
in #4103.I've looked around for alternative APIs, but it seems that the alternatives are also marked internal:
opentelemetry-dotnet/src/OpenTelemetry/Resources/ResourceBuilder.cs
Lines 145 to 153 in 31cf729
Big fan of this project and all the hard work you folks are doing, so if this is user error, I'd appreciate a pointer in the right direction, but if not, would greatly appreciate seeing this functionality return soon so I can keep my projects on track with
1.4.0-rc.3
.What is the expected behavior?
Bumping from
1.4.0-rc.2
to1.4.0-rc.3
does not break resource builder DI functionality.What is the actual behavior?
Bumping from
1.4.0-rc.2
to1.4.0-rc.3
breaks resource builder DI functionality.Reproduce
With versions
1.4.0-rc.2
, I can use theConfigureBuilder(...)
method to inject custom resource detectors from anIServiceProvider
.In my actual use case, there are many custom resource detectors, not just
SomeResourceDetector
, but here's a contrived concrete example to illustrate why its being injected:Additional Context
I'm not necessarily asking for
ConfigureBuilder(...)
itself to be brought back (it seems like there was some rationale behind removing it from the public API in #4103), but I would like to see the functionality to inject resource detectors (and other things that might be useful when programmatically configuring a resource builder) restored.Potentially off-topic context that might still be relevant to the team
I'm a big advocate for OTel generally, and your team's work specifically, in my organization and unfortunately breaking functionality like this (even cognizant of the pre-release status) invites FUD about overall reliability from the
non-believersyet-to-be-converted.I believe in this project, so I'm happy to keep answering those questions, but wanted to bubble some non-technical "impact" of this breakage in light of recent discussions around community impression of project stability in issues like #4083 (comment) by @CodeBlanch, @martinjt, and others.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: