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

feat: adding traces to UF components #1763

Conversation

franciscolopezsancho
Copy link
Contributor

@franciscolopezsancho
Copy link
Contributor Author

I still need to fix a couple of things but it's reviewable already.

Copy link
Member

@octonato octonato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I did a first pass. Mainly on the codegen part. Left some comments.

@franciscolopezsancho
Copy link
Contributor Author

The new integration test won't pass until https://github.com/lightbend/kalix-proxy/pull/2096 is merged

Copy link
Contributor

@johanandren johanandren left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you expect to try tackle propagating the context to whatever the UF does separately, and this only adds spans for the SDK side of the components? Are we sure we are interested in the SDK spans or is the propagation possibly the valuable thing?

I think I mentioned this in the other PR but separate SDK spans for calls we already have spans for in the proxy is probably more interesting to us than it is to the users.

Compare the value for a user of:

    [-------- proxy --------]
      [------- sdk --------]

Vs

   [-----   service/component A -----------------------------------------]
          [ ---- service/component B]   [----- service/component C –––] 

Where they can see what component talked to what other component and which of them took time etc.

Copy link
Contributor

@aludwiko aludwiko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

minor comments

@franciscolopezsancho franciscolopezsancho force-pushed the tracing_proxy_to_uf_components branch from c7a4a94 to 1ca8915 Compare October 12, 2023 09:35
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
version: "3"
services:
kalix-proxy:
image: gcr.io/kalix-public/kalix-proxy:1.1.19
image: gcr.io/kalix-workbench/kalix-proxy:1.1.20
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If these changes should stay, it is probably be the official image?

Also makes me wonder a bit if this shouldn't be a separate test module for tracing so that running other it tests for the SDK doesn't necessarily require running the additional containers etc? Maybe talk to @aludwiko or @octonato a bit about it just to be sure?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

darn, I thought I changed that back.

Sure. Looking for your feedback, guys.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

... I did change it. But didn't push. Not very useful 'it works in my machine'

sdk/java-sdk-spring/tempo-query.yaml Show resolved Hide resolved
- Closing the span after the future is complete
- Creating only one thread to close/flush all the OpenTelemetrySdks
- Some cleaning
- Creating in a map of OpenTelemetrySdks to reuse by service
@@ -52,18 +50,27 @@ public abstract class DockerIntegrationTest {

private KalixSpringApplication kalixSpringApplication;

public DockerIntegrationTest(ApplicationContext applicationContext) {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This changes are related to the TracingIntegrationTest. I needed to pass some extra configuration.

Copy link
Contributor

@johanandren johanandren left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One more thing then I think this is fine to merge

@franciscolopezsancho franciscolopezsancho merged commit 827d223 into lightbend:main Oct 17, 2023
65 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants