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.

Sign up for GitHub

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 annotations for opentelemetry-sdk #189

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add annotations for opentelemetry-sdk #189

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions index.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
"mocha/api"
]
},
"opentelemetry-sdk": {
},
"parse-cron": {
},
"pundit": {
Expand Down
34 changes: 34 additions & 0 deletions rbi/annotations/opentelemetry-sdk.rbi
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
# typed: true

module OpenTelemetry
sig { returns(OpenTelemetry::Trace::TracerProvider) }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can see some internal usages of the SDK, I'm not familiar with OpenTelemetry but isn't it a better experience to return implementation types? For example OpenTelemetry::SDK::Trace::TracerProvider?

Example call site: OpenTelemetry.tracer_provider.shutdown

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, I can do that. Would you also like me to update all the references below to be OpenTelemetry::SDK:: instead of OpenTelemetry::?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think so. Looks like API and SDK are 2 separate gems. This annotation is for the SDK given the name so I think it's fine to type things for the SDK specifically.

def self.tracer_provider; end
end

class OpenTelemetry::Trace::TracerProvider
sig { params(name: T.nilable(String), version: T.nilable(String)).returns(OpenTelemetry::Trace::Tracer) }
def tracer(name = nil, version = nil); end
end

class OpenTelemetry::Trace::Tracer
sig do
params(
name: String,
with_parent: T.nilable(OpenTelemetry::Trace::Span),
attributes: T.nilable(T::Hash[String, T.untyped]),
links: T.nilable(T::Array[OpenTelemetry::Trace::Link]),
start_timestamp: T.nilable(Integer),
kind: T.nilable(Symbol)
)
.returns(OpenTelemetry::Trace::Span)
end
def start_span(name, with_parent: nil, attributes: nil, links: nil, start_timestamp: nil, kind: nil); end
end

class OpenTelemetry::Trace::Span
sig { params(key: String, value: T.untyped).returns(T.self_type) }
def set_attribute(key, value); end

sig { params(end_timestamp: Integer).void }
def finish(end_timestamp: nil); end
Comment on lines +32 to +33
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the default value is nil, I think the end_timestamp should be T.nilable(Integer), no?

end
Loading