Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Refactoring SPEC for DB spans #420
Refactoring SPEC for DB spans #420
Changes from 3 commits
6dc1382
3f255c2
a7c355f
35110c8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want "db" fields for S3? If so... these values look like copypasta from DynamoDB.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The Node.js (and I believe Python, because I copied from there) agents use a format that can include either or both of (a) query parms (in URL query encoded form) and (b) the request body (JSON) separated by two newlines:
https://github.com/elastic/apm-agent-nodejs/blob/v3.14.0/lib/instrumentation/elasticsearch-shared.js#L21-L28
https://github.com/elastic/apm-agent-python/blob/master/elasticapm/instrumentation/packages/elasticsearch.py#L65-L78
Is that a form worth codifying?
Dale, who is using this field from Kibana APM traces for Elasticsearch performance work, brought up this discussion ticket to reconsider this format.
In general, with Elasticsearch, you need to consider the URL path, the query params, and the request body to fully understand the query.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we are just documenting the status quo here, then perhaps saying "that may be used as well" rather than "that may be used instead" is more accurate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That seems to be something that's specific to the Node.js and Python agents and that it can and probably should change in the future. Personally, I think it'd make more sense to use
context.http.*
to store the URL and the query parameters than to add it todb.statement
. Ralley could then have a condition on whether the db.statement starts with{
.