[Traces] Support DI scenarios in instrumentation without SDK dependency + named options in SqlClient instrumentation #3663
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3663 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.61% 87.45% -0.17%
==========================================
Files 283 283
Lines 10270 10282 +12
==========================================
- Hits 8998 8992 -6
- Misses 1272 1290 +18
|
| .AddSqlClientInstrumentation() | ||
| .AddSqlClientInstrumentation("Instrumentation2", configureSqlClientInstrumentationOptions: null) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the goofy thing about adding instrumentation twice is that there are a couple strange side effects that could occur.
With the SqlClient instrumentation I think what would happen is that multiple activities would be started
If this pattern were applied to the ASP.NET Core instrumentation I think the side effect might be different. I think there'd only be one activity (the one created by ASP.NET Core), but the instrumentation would be invoked twice... maybe duplicating work that shouldn't be duplicated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good points! Just to clarify, it was always possible before to register instrumentation(s) multiple times. All I'm doing here is supporting binding named options to it. We should look at this as a separate effort?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, definitely a separate effort to consider how and if we should prevent multiple calls to add instrumentation.
Though, if we did prevent multiple calls then would there value in supporting named options for instrumentation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have a well thought out answer 😄 Really all I'm doing on these PRs is establishing anytime you ask for options, pass a name (either user-supplied or default). IMO it is a good pattern that allows the users to have control if they happen to need it without a lot of effort to do it.
Why would they need it? Off the top of my head...
-
Using named options always could just be a preference thing for large complex applications?
-
Imagine some application with 2 tracer providers. That application has a single
IConfigurationwhich needs to apply to different providers. Naming helps in this case in a big way. More clear with exporters for sure. Instrumentation... depends on what the behavior is for calling "AddInstrumentation" across two providers. What the user probably wants to do in that case is create one activity, listen on both providers? But then we also have filter/enrich things to worry about. Kind of undefined at the moment. -
Reaching here, but thinking about the OTel config file thing. Let's say we read in OTel standard config file and expose via Options/IConfiguration keys so that SDK can pick it up it. Having the name available everywhere might be useful as a disambiguation/collision avoidance mechanism?
| @@ -11,5 +11,6 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| <ItemGroup> | |||
| <PackageReference Include="System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource" Version="$(SystemDiagnosticSourcePkgVer)" /> | |||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions" Version="$(MicrosoftExtensionsDependencyInjectionAbstractionsPkgVer)" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since some of our other instrumentation packages reference the SDK, should we just consider having the SqlClient instrumentation reference it too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is a bug that Instrumentations depend on SDK. We'll need to fix that sometime in the future. The main reason was to do the SupressInstrumentation stuff, which was only in SDK, not in API...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you guys feel about what this PR is doing?
- Adding
Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractionsto API allows it to seeIServiceCollection - Adding
ConfigureServices&ConfigureBuildertoTracerProviderBuilderallows all the fundamental DI features to work with only API reference + allows us to sunset theIDeferredTracerProviderBuilder🌤️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is a bug that Instrumentations depend on SDK
😆 that was my thought too, but wanted to test the waters.
In some sense, I've thought about the dependencies of the SDK project on DI, Configuration, Options, etc to be a kind of known bug/issue. As I recall, it was unintentional, but the ship sailed.
How do you guys feel about what this PR is doing?
I feel ok about this especially given the unintended stance we fell into on the SDK project. Though, I think it warrants a discussion beyond the scope of just this PR. I think we should attempt to define boundaries of what kind of things are OK for the API and SDK to depend on going forward. It would help this discussion and the one here #3639 (comment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SDK depending on additional things is one thing. Its less concerning.
API can be used by library authors to instrument their libraries. (in case of .NET, a lot of libraries just need DS dependency, but some would need OTel API as well). Adding more dependency to API require a stronger justification...
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity and will be closed in 7 days. Commenting or Pushing will instruct the bot to automatically remove the label. This bot runs once per day. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
Stale
|
Closed as inactive. Feel free to reopen if this PR is still being worked on. |
Changes
#3533 doesn't tackle
IDeferredTracerProviderBuilderwhich is needed for instrumentation libraries which do not have a dependency on SDK. Such libraries are limited in what they can participate in because withoutIServiceCollectionthey can't register anything.What this PR does is expose
IServiceCollectionto API and shows howOpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.SqlClientcan then use the same patterns as everything else.To do this API needs a
Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractionsreference. Is that a big deal? 🤷♀️ That reference comes with SDK regardless, so most users are going to get it one way or another.Opening as a draft to gather feedback.
TODOs
CHANGELOG.mdupdated for non-trivial changes