Define "none" numeric value#3000
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First, I don't think this is specific to numeric values. Booleans, strings, enums, etc., might accept "null" values just as well.
Second, there is no concept of "null value" in this environment specification, so this specification, as written now, has no meaning (or an unclear meaning).
Your goal seems to allow explicitly setting "no limit" in the limit configuration. You should add a more specific spec to that subsection, instead of the generic section here.
(PS: Congrats on creating PR #3000 🥳)
Why would someone want "no limit"? Related to #2960 (comment). |
reyang
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to understand why "no limit" is needed.
I agree that "unbounded limits" is a bad practice from "reliability" standpoint. But I do not see anything in the spec that disallows limitless configurations. Current default for Related comment: #2045 (comment) If it is possible to have a unlimited configuration then we should allow setting it. I have no clear nor strong opinion 😆 |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
I am closing this issue per last .NET AutoInstrumentation Discussion with @carlosalberto. Instead we should consider to change default values for |
Fixes N/A
Changes
Define "none" numeric value.
It will be useful to correctly set
OTEL_SPAN_ATTRIBUTE_COUNT_LIMITto no limit. For now, it should use int.maxvalue or similar values.Related issues for enum handling #2102