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

Add semantic conventions for outgoing FaaS invocations #862

Conversation

arminru
Copy link
Member

@arminru arminru commented Aug 24, 2020

Resolves #861.

@arminru arminru requested review from a team August 24, 2020 16:12
@arminru arminru requested review from thisthat and dyladan August 24, 2020 16:12
@arminru arminru added area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory labels Aug 24, 2020
Comment on lines 67 to 69
| `faas.invoked_name` | string | The name of the invoked function. | `my-function` | Yes |
| `faas.invoked_provider` | string | The cloud provider of the invoked function. | `aws` | Yes |
| `faas.invoked_region` | string | The cloud region of the invoked function. | `eu-central-1` | See below |
Copy link
Member Author

@arminru arminru Aug 25, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm inviting y'all to a naming/namespacing discussion! 😀

Please vote:

🎉 - faas.invoked_name, faas.invoked_provider, faas.invoked_region
🚀 - faas.invoked.name, faas.invoked.provider, faas.invoked.region (introducing a separate invoked namespace)
👀 - the above, but with outgoing instead of invoked
😕 - something else

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm OK with all of them. 😃

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think invoked is fine. I would weakly prefer a namespace probably, but I have no real reason other than "feels right".

Copy link
Contributor

@anuraaga anuraaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! I'm a bit unclear on how a client is supposed to know implementation details like the faas name.

Copy link
Contributor

@anuraaga anuraaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

@arminru please rebase.

@carlosalberto carlosalberto merged commit b1eebae into open-telemetry:master Sep 2, 2020
@arminru arminru deleted the outgoing-faas-semconv branch September 2, 2020 15:34
carlosalberto pushed a commit to carlosalberto/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Semantic conventions for outgoing FaaS invocations are missing
8 participants