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

Declare OTLP/JSON Stable #436

Conversation

tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan commented Nov 8, 2022

tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Nov 8, 2022
@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan marked this pull request as ready for review November 8, 2022 22:45
@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan requested a review from a team November 8, 2022 22:45
@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

@tigrannajaryan I take for granted #363 is not a hard requirement for this?

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member Author

@tigrannajaryan I take for granted #363 is not a hard requirement for this?

No, it is not because we prohibit using enum value names in JSON. We require using numeric values.

Copy link
Member

@bogdandrutu bogdandrutu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@tigrannajaryan this should wait first for the specification to be released per our guidance correct? Anything that is specified in the specification repo becomes the rule once it is released.

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member Author

@tigrannajaryan this should wait first for the specification to be released per our guidance correct? Anything that is specified in the specification repo becomes the rule once it is released.

Once we are ready (both PRs have enough approvals) we can merge both PRs at the same time.

@bogdandrutu bogdandrutu dismissed their stale review November 10, 2022 20:25

Since I don't feel that strong. But we have a rule that "unrealeased" specification should not be used :))

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member Author

@bogdandrutu
Copy link
Member

bogdandrutu commented Jan 24, 2023

After open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#2930 is merged the "protocol" part of the protobufs is stable, but what about the helpers (flag values (or mask values, unclear though)) that are not defined by the protocol, are these stable? What does it mean for JSON encoding?

Update: If we keep them, what are the guarantees for these fields since they are not put on the wire, so definitely they will always be "wire compatible".

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member Author

tigrannajaryan commented Jan 27, 2023

After open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#2930 is merged the "protocol" part of the protobufs is stable, but what about the helpers (flag values (or mask values, unclear though)) that are not defined by the protocol, are these stable? What does it mean for JSON encoding?

Helpers are not visible anywhere on the wire (we intentionally disallowed enum values as strings to make sure enum names don't end on wire), so I think the fact that we have helpers or don't have helpers has no impact for JSON encoding. Do you see this differently?

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member Author

After open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#2930 is merged the "protocol" part of the protobufs is stable, but what about the helpers (flag values (or mask values, unclear though)) that are not defined by the protocol, are these stable? What does it mean for JSON encoding?

Helpers are not visible anywhere on the wire (we intentionally disallowed enum values as strings to make sure enum names don't end on wire), so I think the fact that we have helpers or don't have helpers has no impact for JSON encoding. Do you see this differently?

@bogdandrutu does this answer your question? Any other concerns or we can move forward with this?

Copy link
Member

@bogdandrutu bogdandrutu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bogdandrutu does this answer your question? Any other concerns or we can move forward with this?

@tigrannajaryan you are correct, my comment is important for 1.0 but not for JSON stability.

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member Author

This is ready to be merged after 1.18 spec release.

carlosalberto added a commit to open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2023
@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

Merging as 1.18.0 was released and open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#2930 was merged.

@carlosalberto carlosalberto merged commit e6dfd7f into open-telemetry:main Feb 9, 2023
@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan deleted the feature/tigran/declare-otlp-json-stable branch February 9, 2023 20:02
tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2023
See also open-telemetry#436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Apr 21, 2023
See also open-telemetry#436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
tigrannajaryan added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2023
See also #436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
joaopgrassi pushed a commit to dynatrace-oss-contrib/semantic-conventions that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
See also open-telemetry#436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
See also open-telemetry#436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
See also open-telemetry#436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
VinozzZ pushed a commit to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
See also open-telemetry#436

Co-authored-by: Carlos Alberto Cortez <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants