-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 277
Add in process executable entity #2655 #2657
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
Open
thompson-tomo
wants to merge
4
commits into
open-telemetry:main
Choose a base branch
from
thompson-tomo:feature/#2655_process_executable
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+88
−0
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | ||
| # Use this changelog template to create an entry for release notes. | ||
| # | ||
| # If your change doesn't affect end users you should instead start | ||
| # your pull request title with [chore] or use the "Skip Changelog" label. | ||
|
|
||
| # One of 'breaking', 'deprecation', 'new_component', 'enhancement', 'bug_fix' | ||
| change_type: enhancement | ||
|
|
||
| # The name of the area of concern in the attributes-registry, (e.g. http, cloud, db) | ||
| component: process | ||
|
|
||
| # A brief description of the change. Surround your text with quotes ("") if it needs to start with a backtick (`). | ||
| note: Add in a process executable entity to describe the executable being run by the process. | ||
|
|
||
| # Mandatory: One or more tracking issues related to the change. You can use the PR number here if no issue exists. | ||
| # The values here must be integers. | ||
| issues: [2655] | ||
|
|
||
| # (Optional) One or more lines of additional information to render under the primary note. | ||
| # These lines will be padded with 2 spaces and then inserted directly into the document. | ||
| # Use pipe (|) for multiline entries. | ||
| subtext: |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you select which ones of these will be identifying or descriptive?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, should the identity attribute values change if the executable is updated to a new version? If so we would probs need an additional attribute for version or everything becomes identity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a question for how this entity will be used and tracked in the system.
As I think this entity is MOST relevant to @open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers - I'd like to get there take on what "identity" for an executable should be.
Do you want to group profiles by an executable by "concept" or "by its version"? I suspect it's the later...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It could be used as either but what I will do is define it without a version (this PR) and create a seperate pr to introduce a new attribute and add it to the entity as identifying as I see a couple of options to address it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seperate PR for adding an attribute for executable version #2673.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In profiling, process.executable.build_id.htlhash is used to uniquely identify executables when 1-1 accuracy is needed (e.g. symbolization) but for other cases (e.g. visualization of flamegraphs) one may use
process.executable.name, which introduces fuzziness (e.g. multiple different executables, which could be entirely unrelated functionality-wise, with the same executable name collapsed under one entity).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It sounds to me like we want the executable to be identified by the build-id, and the name is a descriptive attirbute which can be used for grouping.
@braydonk / @christos68k - I think this is worth further discussion
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@braydonk Actually if the path to the executable is all that is changed and the file name renames the same the value of the name attribute wouldn't change.
I am more than happy to introduce a new attribute to use as the identifying attribute.
Howabout I set the name to descriptive in this PR or even leave it unset & we use #2673 for defining a new identifying attribute.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's important that the profiling SIG make the decision for what the identifying attribute(s) should be. Based on my discussion with them we at least agreed on the name not being identifying so we'll start with that, and it seems like the attribute @christos68k mentioned above is likely the best candidate, but it sounded like the Profiling SIG had other things to work through before making the final decision if I understood correctly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure I have made the name attribute to be descriptive and the htlhash to not have a role so that we can discuss seperately if htlhash is the identity and the description is updated. Let me know if this PR nneeds any additional changes.