-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 174
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
Remove prefix in yaml, add policy check to block future usages (and minor cleanups) #1293
Remove prefix in yaml, add policy check to block future usages (and minor cleanups) #1293
Conversation
|
@trisch-me great point. This would be a blocker to #1292 and tooling changes open-telemetry/weaver#263. I still want to proceed with this PR since it does not stop someone from using prefix now (when necessary) or tooling from introducing any changes that can still leverage the prefix. |
actually it does break it - as soon as prefix will be added because someone needs it the resolved registry with current weaver will double the prefix, so it will be |
whoever adds it, would remove it from the attribute id to not break things - nothing depends on prefix location today. |
but then it is inconsistent. If we have decided to be explicit and provide prefix always in the id we need to update instrumentation as well so in case prefix would be there it will not break. Therefore I propose to merge this PR only together with/after weaver PR. If you want I can create a PR in weaver which does this job but I'm against merging this PR until tooling is ready. |
it's already inconsistent. Check out deprecated attributes in the registry. All the tooling is agnostic to where the prefix is today. Instrumentations use fully qualified name (prefix + id) since that's how tooling resolves name - the id/prefix is in most cases are not even visible beyond weaver/build-tools. I'm ok waiting for the tooling changes. I'm trying to explain that this PR does not change status quo. |
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.
this seems like a good incremental improvement to me
|
discussed at the tooling wg call
@trisch-me I want to double-check if you're ok with it. |
4939b93
to
1cb0f1e
Compare
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.
thank you @lmolkova
With concrete goal to deprecate prefix I approve this PR
Changes
Related to #1292 - this PR does not block anyone from using prefix, only changes the current pattern.
allow_custom_values
on enumsMerge requirement checklist
[chore]