Introduce a bootstrap command to auto-install packages #650
Conversation
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
6 times, most recently
from
a85749a to
4d20855
Compare
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
3 times, most recently
from
57b9a53 to
4ecd50e
Compare
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
5 times, most recently
from
0bd266d to
25bbf76
Compare
| instrumentations = { | ||
| "dbapi": "opentelemetry-ext-dbapi>=0.6b0", | ||
| "flask": "opentelemetry-ext-flask>=0.6b0", | ||
| "grpc": "opentelemetry-ext-grpc>=0.6b0", | ||
| "requests": "opentelemetry-ext-http-requests>=0.6b0", | ||
| "mysql": "opentelemetry-ext-mysql>=0.6b0", | ||
| "psycopg2": "opentelemetry-ext-psycopg2>=0.6b0", | ||
| "pymongo": "opentelemetry-ext-pymongo>=0.6b0", | ||
| "pymysql": "opentelemetry-ext-pymysql", | ||
| "redis": "opentelemetry-ext-redis", | ||
| "sqlalchemy": "opentelemetry-ext-sqlalchemy", | ||
| "wsgi": "opentelemetry-ext-wsgi>=0.6b0", | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not have hardcoded references to existing instrumentations. This list should be compiled from the available packages that implement the opentelemetry-instrumentor entry point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there a way to get this information at runtime or do you want to make it a build step and just automate generation of this list?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this can help. Let me know if it does, please 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if it does. This can help me get a list of installed instrumentations at runtime right?
This script is supposed to be used to install the required instrumentation packages. If we were to automate this, I think the way to do it would be to create a dev script that walks over the ext packages, figures out which ones are auto-instrumentation packages, then figures out which libraries they instrument and then generate a .py file for bootstrap.py to import and use. Even if we do that, in my experience working with a similar command for SignalFx's Python instrumentation, we might need to pin specific versions of different instrumentation in different versions of the bootstrap script so it might not always be feasible to auto-generate such a list without adding some "hard-coded" annotations to instrumentations or bootstrap script.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit of a tricky problem. @owais can you file an issue to see if we can track a more automated way to do this, or just maybe include this in documentation for auto-instrumentation?
There's merit in hardcoding as well: we don't add magic auto-instrumentation until we've tested things sufficiently.
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _pip_check(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we please refrain from single use functions? It forces the reader to look back in the file while reading this code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think single use functions are good, when you are reading the code you find the function and you know what it is doing without having to understand how it is done. If you remove them, you'll end up with a very long function having to understand all the implementation details at once.
| _OUTPUT_INSTALL = "install" | ||
| _OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS = "requirements" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please move these module-level constants inside run since they are only used there.
| cmd = { | ||
| _OUTPUT_INSTALL: _run_install, | ||
| _OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS: _run_requirments, | ||
| }[args.output] | ||
| cmd(_find_installed_libraries()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| cmd = { | |
| _OUTPUT_INSTALL: _run_install, | |
| _OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS: _run_requirments, | |
| }[args.output] | |
| cmd(_find_installed_libraries()) | |
| { | |
| _OUTPUT_INSTALL: _run_install, | |
| _OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS: _run_requirments, | |
| }[args.output](_find_installed_libraries()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had that but it was just too much going on in a single line :)
| return library in sys.modules or pkgutil.find_loader(library) is not None | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _find_installed_libraries(): |
| pip_check = check_pipe.communicate()[0].decode() | ||
| pip_check_lower = pip_check.lower() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| pip_check = check_pipe.communicate()[0].decode() | |
| pip_check_lower = pip_check.lower() | |
| pip_check_lower = check_pipe.communicate()[0].decode().lower() |
|
Single use functions were used because they are all system calls and can be more easily substituted if needed for example, can be mocked in tests. Making system calls inline makes mocking harder and less clear. I think it is worth it wrapping system calls in their own functions but happy to re-consider. |
Ok, making things easier to mock in tests is actually a good reason for single use functions, let's just try to use them only when strictly necessary 👍 |
opentelemetry-auto-instrumentation/src/opentelemetry/auto_instrumentation/bootstrap.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
opentelemetry-auto-instrumentation/src/opentelemetry/auto_instrumentation/bootstrap.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
opentelemetry-auto-instrumentation/src/opentelemetry/auto_instrumentation/bootstrap.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
opentelemetry-auto-instrumentation/src/opentelemetry/auto_instrumentation/bootstrap.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| "mysql": "opentelemetry-ext-mysql>=0.6b0", | ||
| "psycopg2": "opentelemetry-ext-psycopg2>=0.6b0", | ||
| "pymongo": "opentelemetry-ext-pymongo>=0.6b0", | ||
| "pymysql": "opentelemetry-ext-pymysql", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why some of them are missing the version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They hadn't been published on pypi yet.
| parser.add_argument( | ||
| "-o", | ||
| "--output", | ||
| choices=[_OUTPUT_INSTALL, _OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS], | ||
| default=_OUTPUT_INSTALL, | ||
| help=""" | ||
| install - uses pip to install the new requirements using to the currently active site-package. | ||
| requirements - prints out the new requirements to stdout. Output can be piped and appended to | ||
| a requirements.txt file. | ||
| """, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need to have the intermediate --output command?
opentelemetry-bootstrap -o install looks weird to me.
What about removing it and having something like the following?
opentelemetry-bootstrap --install
opentelemetry-bootstrap --requirements
Btw, should a call without arguments (opentelemetry-bootstrap) perform the installation? I got surprised by it, I run opentelemetry-bootstrap to see what was it about and suddenly it was performing a lot of installations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assumed we might have a more actions in future like updating requirements.txt file in place or support for other tools like pipenv, poetry, etc. Would --action/-a be a better name for the flag instead of --output/-o ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replaced with --action/-a instead and change the default to printing requirements.
| OpenTelemetry auto-instrumentation packages often have traced libraries as instrumentation dependency | ||
| (e.g. flask for opentelemetry-ext-flask), so using -I on library could cause likely undesired Flask upgrade. | ||
| Using --no-dependencies alone would leave potential for nonfunctional installations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you please mind wrapping these long lines?
| logger.info( | ||
| "Existing %s installation detected. Uninstalling.", package | ||
| ) | ||
| _pip_uninstall(package) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know if we should uninstall packages, or at least, if it should be the default behavior without a flag for that. I can imagine an use case where the user has a working setup but he's missing the instrumentation for some library, he tries opentelemetry-bootstrap and boom, all his instrumentation packages are updated, this could break this setup.
I think in this case we should just print a message telling the user that the instrumentation is already installed and not actions will be performed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also noticed that this logic is uninstalling the instrumentation even if the version to be installed is the same one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reason to uninstall is that pip does not update packages with pip install for some sources github being one. So if a dependency installs directly from github, pip install does not update to newest version. We are not referencing any packages to be installed directly from github right now and not sure if at least the production ever will. We can remove this if everyone thinks we'll always be referencing pypi packages only.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
he tries opentelemetry-bootstrap and boom, all his instrumentation packages are updated, this could break this setup.
Well, the intention of the command is to install/update the dependencies. We can make dry-run the default action for the command and print the dependencies, and force users to issue --install flag to actually make changes to site-packages like you suggested in another comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've made printing the requirements the default action. LMK what you think about that.
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _pip_check(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think single use functions are good, when you are reading the code you find the function and you know what it is doing without having to understand how it is done. If you remove them, you'll end up with a very long function having to understand all the implementation details at once.
| OpenTelemetry auto-instrumentation packages often have traced libraries as instrumentation dependency | ||
| (e.g. flask for opentelemetry-ext-flask), so using -I on library could cause likely undesired Flask upgrade. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need to clarify it in a broader way. Do we want instrumentations to have install dependencies on the instrumented libraries?
If a user does pip install opentelemetry-ext-flask, should it update/install the Flask version installed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think they should. It causes more problems than it solved but it is what we do right now. Examples https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-python/blob/master/ext/opentelemetry-ext-flask/setup.cfg#L43 https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-python/blob/master/ext/opentelemetry-ext-django/setup.cfg#L41
ocelotl
dismissed
their stale review
There is a discussion regarding hardcoding, hardcoding may end up being the preferred approach. Dismissing to unblock this while the discussion is ongoing.
| # relevant instrumentors and tracers to uninstall and check for conflicts for target libraries | ||
| libraries = { | ||
| "dbapi": ("opentelemetry-ext-dbapi",), | ||
| "flask": ("opentelemetry-ext-flask",), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that opentelemetry-ext-django is merged, can you add django as well?
|
|
||
| _ACTION_INSTALL = "install" | ||
| _ACTION_REQUIREMENTS = "requirements" | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be preferred to have a description of what this module does here as well as in the README so users will know what is going on and being installed automatically.
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8c07b89 to
d016505
Compare
|
Thanks @ocelotl. @open-telemetry/python-approvers PTAL. I've fixed issues raised by most of the comments or replied to them. Working on add docs for the new command now. |
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
6 times, most recently
from
dd8784f to
78784bb
Compare
|
Took care of the remaining comments and updated autoinstrumentation package docs. PTAL. |
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
4 times, most recently
from
d181b78 to
ab53d36
Compare
| "dbapi": "opentelemetry-ext-dbapi>=0.8.8", | ||
| "django": "opentelemetry-ext-django>=0.8.8", | ||
| "flask": "opentelemetry-ext-flask>=0.8.8", | ||
| "grpc": "opentelemetry-ext-grpc>=0.8.8", | ||
| "requests": "opentelemetry-ext-requests>=0.8.8", | ||
| "jinja2": "opentelemetry-ext-jinja2>=0.8.8", | ||
| "mysql": "opentelemetry-ext-mysql>=0.8.8", | ||
| "psycopg2": "opentelemetry-ext-psycopg2>=0.8.8", | ||
| "pymongo": "opentelemetry-ext-pymongo>=0.8.8", | ||
| "pymysql": "opentelemetry-ext-pymysql>=0.8.8", | ||
| "redis": "opentelemetry-ext-redis>=0.8.8", | ||
| "sqlalchemy": "opentelemetry-ext-sqlalchemy>=0.8.8", | ||
| "wsgi": "opentelemetry-ext-wsgi>=0.8.8", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are the version numbers correct here? I would expect them to be 0.8b0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No idea how they crept in. I think search/replace command messed them up. Fixed now. Thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm still seeing 0.8.8 unless im missing something
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My bad. Should be fixed now. The push didn't go through last time.
owais
force-pushed
the
bootstrap-cmd
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0397b54 to
1823ff2
Compare
|
@owais please update the changelog, then i'll merge it |
This commit introduces a new boostrap command that is shipped as part of the opentelemetry-auto-instrumentation package. The command detects installed libraries and installs the relevant auto-instrumentation packages.
|
Updated. @codeboten |
This commit introduces a new boostrap command that is shipped as part of
the opentelemetry-auto-instrumentation package. The command detects
installed libraries and installs the relevant auto-instrumentation
packages.