-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
hostmetricsreceiver
semantic conventions transition
#35325
Comments
Pinging code owners for receiver/hostmetrics: @dmitryax @braydonk. See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
Removing |
Do we plan to support the two metrics schemas during the transition? Or new naming features will be only applied to the semconv schema? |
I think the plan at the moment is to support two schemas, but leaving it up to implementer whether a new metric or attribute change should be added to both schemas at the same time or only the semconv schema. Given that we are getting closer and closer to stabilization before I'm able to initiate this plan, I'm hoping we won't have to support two schemas for long. I think the two schema support will be necessary for a short while though, given that some of the metrics/attributes are a major lift that users need time to prepare for. |
Other areas like messaging SemConv define a specific migration plan for instrumentations, ie: https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions/pull/1198/files#diff-bbe463329a83f81ca6c90d49d1998d69929432ba28bb6eed991a03cd110f74e6R12-R27 I'm preparing an early stage plan for k8s SemConv as well: open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#1597. What I'm missing though is what would be the plan to follow in the Collector.
I would like to collect feedback here since answering the above questions will help us making our migration plans more concrete. @open-telemetry/semconv-system-approvers @open-telemetry/collector-contrib-approvers could you please share your thoughts? |
A feature gate is the idiomatic approach in the Collector, I think this is what our users would expect and what makes the most sense here.
Do we have data on what users preferred for this on the HTTP migration?
Not sure I understand this question: what is the concern here? IMO doing this migration (at least until we have the beta stage) should be a requirement for the hosmetrics receiver or the k8s components to be marked as 1.0. Since we are at 0.x, breaking users is okay, but we want to do it slowly and allowing them to adopt this change at their own pace through the feature gate approach. |
The question is mostly about deciding for how long the transition phase will be in place and how this will be expressed in our versioning strategy. Using the That would mean that we can introduce the feature gate in |
I would block 1.0 on semconvs being stable. I would not block 1.0 on the feature gate being stable (I feel like what matters is default behavior). There will be other requirements to prepare this component for 1.0, but provided we have all of those then yes, that makes sense |
On first glance I struggle to see the usecase for hostmetrics to produce both schemas at the same time, but we can certainly find a way to build that in if users would be able to make use of it. |
Discussed on 2024-11-21 meeting. We probably want two feature gates: one for enabling the new schema, and one for disabling the old schema. Then:
|
This issue will be used to track the work for making
hostmetricsreceiver
capable of transitioning to Semantic Conventions compliance.Task list:
mdatagen
to allow it to generate packages with names other thanmetadata
(Allowmdatagen
to generate packages with names other thanmetadata
opentelemetry-collector#11231)processscraper
andprocessesscraper
since theprocesses.*
metrics are being moved toprocess.*
([receiver/hostmetrics] Deprecate processesscraper #30894) (Blocked on mdatagen: add wildcard name matching for configs opentelemetry-collector#10065)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: