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

Asynchronous Instrument API non-compliant with OTel Specification: creation does not accept callbacks #3451

Closed
MrAlias opened this issue Nov 8, 2022 · 11 comments · Fixed by #3507
Assignees
Labels
area:metrics Part of OpenTelemetry Metrics bug Something isn't working pkg:API Related to an API package

Comments

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor

MrAlias commented Nov 8, 2022

Description

The OpenTelemetry specification states:

The API to construct asynchronous instruments MUST accept the following parameters:

The API MUST support creation of asynchronous instruments by passing zero or more callback functions to be permanently registered to the newly created instrument.

Our current metric API does not accept "zero or more callback functions" for new async instruments.

@MrAlias MrAlias added bug Something isn't working pkg:API Related to an API package area:metrics Part of OpenTelemetry Metrics labels Nov 8, 2022
@MrAlias MrAlias moved this to Triage Needed in Go: Metric API (GA) Nov 8, 2022
@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Nov 8, 2022

This will break the symmetry with the sync instrument options, but it looks like the solution will be to add some WithCallback option for async instruments.

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor

jmacd commented Nov 10, 2022

The way I read the specification, the current asynchronous API is compliant. You wrote "Our current metric API does not accept zero or more callback functions" for new async instruments

That is true, however, I had parsed the "or" in that statement as allowing instrument creation with ONLY zero callback functions, to allow the current form of NewCallback(). A WithCallback() API sounds nice to have, but not absolutely necessary.

@Aneurysm9
Copy link
Member

That is true, however, I had parsed the "or" in that statement as allowing instrument creation with ONLY zero callback functions, to allow the current form of NewCallback().

That's how I read it as well, but I seemed to be alone and I could see the other interpretation (must accept list of callbacks, even if its length is zero) as valid as well. v0v

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Nov 10, 2022

I think it could be better specified if "or" is non-exclusive similar to the rest of the document, or it is meant to be exclusive. But I believe the intent is the common non-exclusive use. Meaning a users should be allowed to pass callback but they can also choose to not pass callbacks if they want.

Given the purpose of the specification is to maintain compatibility across implementations, and all the other stable releases I have looked at offer this, I think we need to as well.

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Nov 10, 2022

This is going to be important to address at this point in time as the symmetry breaking between sync and async instrument options is one we need to fix now or forever live with. If we went stable without adjusting this we would not be able to support a callback option or would have to ignore it for sync instrument creations.

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor

jmacd commented Nov 10, 2022

But I believe the intent is the common non-exclusive use

😁 I think I wrote this sentence, and I wrote it after the current Go async instrument API was adopted thinking it would allow it to pass. To me, it's in the spirit of Go to reduce the number of optional ways of configuring something. I also see how WithCallback() makes life easier for developers with a small number of instruments, so I would not argue against it.

Considering this alongside #3452 I would suggest that WithCallback()-registered callbacks cannot be unregistered.

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Nov 10, 2022

Considering this alongside #3452 I would suggest that WithCallback()-registered callbacks cannot be unregistered.

Agreed. It was pointed in the SIG meeting that the specification also says these should be "permanently registered" which motivated a consensus to agree with this there.

@MrAlias MrAlias added this to the Metric v0.35.0 milestone Dec 2, 2022
@MrAlias MrAlias moved this from Triage Needed to Todo in Go: Metric API (GA) Dec 2, 2022
@MrAlias MrAlias self-assigned this Dec 2, 2022
@MrAlias MrAlias moved this from Todo to In Progress in Go: Metric API (GA) Dec 2, 2022
@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Dec 2, 2022

The approach in #3507 works well to ensure that the instrument the callback is registered for is the only instrument allowed to be updated:

type Callback func(ctx context.Context, instrument Asynchronous) error

However, this also means the user needs to make a type conversion before they can observe. E.g.

_, err := meter.AsyncInt64().Gauge(
	"MemoryUsage",
	WithUnit(unit.Bytes),
	WithCallback(func(ctx context.Context, instrument Asynchronous) error {
		// Do Work to get the real memoryUsage.
		// mem := GatherMemory(ctx)
		mem := 75000

		instrument.(asyncint64.Gauge).Observe(ctx, int64(mem))
		return nil
	}),
)

This is not ideal. It requires users to understand this is needed and opens up the possibility of a panic if a bug is introduced.

It would be great if we could design a callback that will ensure that only the instrument it is registered for is updated, but also avoid having the user do this type conversion.

Alternates

Typed callback return values

type CallbackInt64 func(context.Context) (int64, error)
type CallbackFloat64 func(context.Context) (float64, error)

Which would mean that the async options would further have to be split by type. E.g.

func WithCallbackInt64(CallbackInt64) AsynchronousInt64Option
func WithCallbackFloat64(CallbackFloat64) AsynchronousFloat64Option

Using generics here would be helpful, but we are trying to not include them in the API.

This will have overhead in the SDK where these callback types will need to be stored separately.

Typed callback parameters

type AsynchronousInt64 interface {
	Asynchronous
	Observe(context.Context, int64, ...attribute.KeyValue)
}

type AsynchronousFloat64 interface {
	Asynchronous
	Observe(context.Context, float64, ...attribute.KeyValue)
}

type CallbackInt64 func(context.Context, AsynchronousInt64) error
type CallbackFloat64 func(context.Context, AsynchronousFloat64) error

func WithCallbackInt64(CallbackInt64) AsynchronousInt64Option
func WithCallbackFloat64(CallbackFloat64) AsynchronousFloat64Option

This will as well have overhead in the SDK where these callback types will need to be stored separately.

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Dec 2, 2022

The "Typed callback return values" proposal would allow for the callbacks to be inlined and avoid a GC ref count on the passed instrument.

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Dec 2, 2022

Splitting options and callbacks into the already existing async/sync packages allows this duplication to be a bit more reasonable. I'm going to update #3057 to use the "Typed callback return values" proposal and split the options this way.

@MrAlias
Copy link
Contributor Author

MrAlias commented Dec 2, 2022

The return value will need to be a slice of attribute to value pairs. Updating in the update.

@MrAlias MrAlias moved this to In Progress in Go: Metric SDK (Beta) Dec 6, 2022
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress to Done in Go: Metric SDK (Beta) Jan 6, 2023
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress to Done in Go: Metric API (GA) Jan 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:metrics Part of OpenTelemetry Metrics bug Something isn't working pkg:API Related to an API package
Projects
No open projects
Status: Done
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants