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

Process semconv: define common attributes and revisit requirement levels #864

Open
lmolkova opened this issue Mar 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Comments

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor

lmolkova commented Mar 29, 2024

Area(s)

area:process

Is your change request related to a problem? Please describe.

We require any of the following attributes to be present

**Additional attribute requirements:** At least one of the following sets of attributes is required:
* [`process.executable.name`](../attributes-registry/process.md)
* [`process.executable.path`](../attributes-registry/process.md)
* [`process.command`](../attributes-registry/process.md)
* [`process.command_line`](../attributes-registry/process.md)
* [`process.command_args`](../attributes-registry/process.md)

As a result, users would get inconsistent data from different systems and instrumentations.
Vendors will need to know how to parse and extract specific details (such as process name).

Describe the solution you'd like

The approach we follow in HTTP and other semconv:

  • Find 1-2 required attributes (e.g. process.executable.name) which are available everywhere
  • Require instrumentations to do the parsing/extraction of this common information so that users and consumers would get consistent data
  • Set appropriate requirement levels on other attributes
@ChrsMark
Copy link
Member

ChrsMark commented Apr 8, 2024

cc: @open-telemetry/semconv-system-approvers

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member

mx-psi commented Dec 12, 2024

Discussed on 2024-12-12 System SemConv WG meeting. We can take care of this as part of defining processes as Entities. The place to put this information down as YAML is not ready yet but we can work on this in parallel.

@dmitryax has a doc where we are working on this. He will create an issue for defining processes as an entitity and mark this as blocked on that issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants