Add new profile signal #534
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Update README
Adds Profiling Signal
Arrays of integers should be used instead of arrays of structs
|
@petethepig Please address all open comments and resolve them and then we can merge it. @open-telemetry/specs-approvers unless I hear objections I am going to merge this. |
…_service.proto Co-authored-by: jack-berg <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jack-berg <[email protected]>
|
@tigrannajaryan I addressed the comments and resolved the outstanding conversations. |
|
@jack-berg you had several comments, you OK with merging in the current state? |
This was referenced Apr 18, 2024
jack-berg
reviewed
Apr 18, 2024
opentelemetry/proto/profiles/v1experimental/pprofextended.proto
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
jack-berg
approved these changes
Apr 18, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left another comment with a naming suggestion. I think it would be best if the relationship between these proto definitions and pprof were hashed out already, since I think not defining that essentially guarantees breaking changes with the proto definitions which might otherwise be avoided.
Still, I'm fine merging this and iterating. Everyone should be on the same page that breaking changes are not only allowed, but very likely.
|
We have a rule of keeping spec and proto PRs open for 2 days since last change. I will merge this tomorrow. |
Co-authored-by: jack-berg <[email protected]>
petethepig
commented
Apr 19, 2024
opentelemetry/proto/profiles/v1experimental/pprofextended.proto
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@tigrannajaryan could you please merge it if everything looks good, as it's been a few days since the last update? Thank you! |
florianl
added a commit
to florianl/opentelemetry-proto
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2024
As commented in [0] and discussed in the OTel Profiling SIG meeting, there are situations where a main binary for a Profile can not be identified. For these cases mark the field optional. [0]: open-telemetry#534 (comment) Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <[email protected]>
VinozzZ
pushed a commit
to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2024
This is a follow up to [OTEP 239: Introduces Profiling Data Model v2](open-telemetry/oteps#239) The main motivation behind this PR is that this will allow us to start experimenting with the profiles proto in opentelemetry-collector. I marked the profiles part as `Experimental` to indicate that this is not a final version of the data model. I copied the proto from the OTEP, and moved `pprofextended.proto` from `profiles/v1/alternatives/pprofextended.proto` to just `profiles/v1/pprofextended.proto`. I did this because I figured we no longer have alternative representations and this will reduce confusion for people outside of Profiling SIG. The rest of the proto stayed the same. I tested this file with a collector fork and I it compiles properly.
VinozzZ
pushed a commit
to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2024
This is a follow up to [OTEP 239: Introduces Profiling Data Model v2](open-telemetry/oteps#239) The main motivation behind this PR is that this will allow us to start experimenting with the profiles proto in opentelemetry-collector. I marked the profiles part as `Experimental` to indicate that this is not a final version of the data model. I copied the proto from the OTEP, and moved `pprofextended.proto` from `profiles/v1/alternatives/pprofextended.proto` to just `profiles/v1/pprofextended.proto`. I did this because I figured we no longer have alternative representations and this will reduce confusion for people outside of Profiling SIG. The rest of the proto stayed the same. I tested this file with a collector fork and I it compiles properly.
VinozzZ
pushed a commit
to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2024
This is a follow up to [OTEP 239: Introduces Profiling Data Model v2](open-telemetry/oteps#239) The main motivation behind this PR is that this will allow us to start experimenting with the profiles proto in opentelemetry-collector. I marked the profiles part as `Experimental` to indicate that this is not a final version of the data model. I copied the proto from the OTEP, and moved `pprofextended.proto` from `profiles/v1/alternatives/pprofextended.proto` to just `profiles/v1/pprofextended.proto`. I did this because I figured we no longer have alternative representations and this will reduce confusion for people outside of Profiling SIG. The rest of the proto stayed the same. I tested this file with a collector fork and I it compiles properly.
VinozzZ
pushed a commit
to VinozzZ/opentelemetry-proto
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2024
This is a follow up to [OTEP 239: Introduces Profiling Data Model v2](open-telemetry/oteps#239) The main motivation behind this PR is that this will allow us to start experimenting with the profiles proto in opentelemetry-collector. I marked the profiles part as `Experimental` to indicate that this is not a final version of the data model. I copied the proto from the OTEP, and moved `pprofextended.proto` from `profiles/v1/alternatives/pprofextended.proto` to just `profiles/v1/pprofextended.proto`. I did this because I figured we no longer have alternative representations and this will reduce confusion for people outside of Profiling SIG. The rest of the proto stayed the same. I tested this file with a collector fork and I it compiles properly.
3 tasks
florianl
added a commit
to florianl/opentelemetry-proto
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2024
As commented in [0] and discussed in the OTel Profiling SIG meeting, there are situations where a main binary for a Profile can not be identified. For these cases mark the field optional. [0]: open-telemetry#534 (comment) Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <[email protected]>
tigrannajaryan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2024
As commented in [0] and discussed in the OTel Profiling SIG meeting, there are situations where a main binary for a Profile can not be identified. For these cases mark the field optional. FYI: @brancz @petethepig @open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers [0]: #534 (comment)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is a follow up to OTEP 239: Introduces Profiling Data Model v2
The main motivation behind this PR is that this will allow us to start experimenting with the profiles proto in opentelemetry-collector. I marked the profiles part as
Experimentalto indicate that this is not a final version of the data model.I copied the proto from the OTEP, and moved
pprofextended.protofromprofiles/v1/alternatives/pprofextended.prototo justprofiles/v1/pprofextended.proto. I did this because I figured we no longer have alternative representations and this will reduce confusion for people outside of Profiling SIG. The rest of the proto stayed the same.I tested this file with a collector fork and I it compiles properly.