Skip to content
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

Instantiate XRay Remote Sampler with OTel Resource #3680

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jj22ee
Copy link
Contributor

@jj22ee jj22ee commented Apr 4, 2023

To be consistent across the OTel SDK XRay samplers, the service name and cloud platform fields of the Remote Sampler should be able to be retrieved from a Resource. Currently, These fields are only configurable through the Remote Sampler constructor.

Context of Issue:
The resource of the TracerProvider is not available to the sampler (GH Issue), and it does not look like it will be anytime soon. As an alternative, the resource should be able to be passed into the sampler instantiation.

@jj22ee jj22ee requested a review from a team April 4, 2023 23:40
@jj22ee jj22ee requested a review from Aneurysm9 as a code owner April 4, 2023 23:40
@jj22ee jj22ee closed this Apr 4, 2023
@jj22ee jj22ee reopened this Apr 5, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 10, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #3680 (6a768ad) into main (3061fc5) will increase coverage by 0.3%.
The diff coverage is 81.8%.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #3680     +/-   ##
=======================================
+ Coverage   79.2%   79.5%   +0.3%     
=======================================
  Files        165     165             
  Lines      10318   10351     +33     
=======================================
+ Hits        8173    8233     +60     
+ Misses      2008    1977     -31     
- Partials     137     141      +4     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
samplers/aws/xray/remote_sampler.go 37.0% <81.8%> (+34.8%) ⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants