-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 894
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
Q: Way to ignore healthcheck traces when using automatic tracer across all languages? #173
Comments
Hi, |
Yes it would be nice to exclude specific URLs in the automatic tracer, and also not in the automatic tracer, but just want to make sure this exclusion feature is configurable in the automatic tracer. |
I agree that URL exclusions would make sense. We currently have that feature in Dynatrace for exactly that purpose. In OpenTelementry, the broader question is: At what level does such configuration need to be applied?
I think config should not be exposed via API. Would add much more complexity. With healthchecks specifically however, it could make sense that a user gives a "hint" about "unimportant" requests (such as healthchecks), so that the Tracer-impl can decide on it's own to exclude them or not. |
+1 to this issue. Some OpenCensus implementations had a list of paths that wouldn't get sampled, which were often used to ensure that health checks, exporters, and other telemetry providers weren't generating traces. This was incredibly useful. |
This feels like an SDK detail, but it would be great if there was a way to do this externally: a config file for example. |
open-telemetry/opentelemetry-js#585 might be of interest |
Has been any decision made on this? I have started looking into this in the context of open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java-instrumentation#1060 From the thread I cannot figure out how the skip URL pattern should work. There are two approaches
The first approach might result in broken traces (e.g. a health check might have an upstream parent or it calls any downstream service/instrumentation). The second approach is more consistent. Is there a way to instruct the tracer to create non-recording span? |
from @iNikem
So there is a way how to create non-recording span. The
In OpenTracing there was |
I guess we could implement a custom Sampler? It could do ParentOrElse for non-matched paths and ParentOnly for marched paths I think. DefaultSpan is going to be renamed to something like PropagatorOnlySpan so it'll become less appropriate, or we need to otherwise chime in on the spec issue that we have a valid use case here. |
Forgive me if this is not in the right place, but I think I have a related usecase... I'm starting to use opentelemetry, and I've noticed that some of my libraries ( I think the best I can do right now, is configs in my exporter, but that feels very cumbersome. |
@carlosalberto I think this is a duplicate of #1597 and should be closed. |
… tracing (open-telemetry#173) [Semantic conventions for messaging systems for tracing](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/trace/semantic_conventions/messaging.md) are available, but are in an experimental state. A [workgroup focusing on messaging semantic conventions](open-telemetry/community#819) will work on bringing the existing semantic conventions for messaging to a stable state. The workgroup meets on **Thursdays at 8AM PST**. This documents proposes a scope for an initial stable version of messaging semantic conventions, as well as a roadmap. It should serve as a starting point for initial discussions in the workgroup and, once agreed on, define the further agenda of the workgroup.
… tracing (open-telemetry#173) [Semantic conventions for messaging systems for tracing](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/trace/semantic_conventions/messaging.md) are available, but are in an experimental state. A [workgroup focusing on messaging semantic conventions](open-telemetry/community#819) will work on bringing the existing semantic conventions for messaging to a stable state. The workgroup meets on **Thursdays at 8AM PST**. This documents proposes a scope for an initial stable version of messaging semantic conventions, as well as a roadmap. It should serve as a starting point for initial discussions in the workgroup and, once agreed on, define the further agenda of the workgroup.
Hi,
Will there be a way to ignore specific endpoints such as health checks when using the automatic tracer?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: