Skip to content

fix(llmobs): avoid missing ml app error if llmobs is disabled [backport 3.9] #13737

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
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 3.9
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

Backport 17ce936 from #13717 to 3.9.

Our _start_span() method does a bunch of llmobs-instrumentation/modifications under the hood, even if LLMObs is disabled. Specifically our llm/task/tool/agent/retrieval/workflow/embeddings() methods only log a warning if ML_APP is missing, but still route to our _start_span() method, which then continues on to do a ML_APP check (and raises if this is missing), even if LLMObs is disabled. This means if ML_APP is missing, any manual instrumentation will break customer apps if they disable LLMObs.

We need to make _start_span() a no-op wrapper around tracer.trace(...). This fix ensures that if llmobs is disabled, we return the span immediately before we start doing llmobs-specific logic.

Checklist

  • PR author has checked that all the criteria below are met
  • The PR description includes an overview of the change
  • The PR description articulates the motivation for the change
  • The change includes tests OR the PR description describes a testing strategy
  • The PR description notes risks associated with the change, if any
  • Newly-added code is easy to change
  • The change follows the library release note guidelines
  • The change includes or references documentation updates if necessary
  • Backport labels are set (if applicable)

Reviewer Checklist

  • Reviewer has checked that all the criteria below are met
  • Title is accurate
  • All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
  • Avoids breaking API changes
  • Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
  • Newly-added code is easy to change
  • Release note makes sense to a user of the library
  • If necessary, author has acknowledged and discussed the performance implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
  • Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the release branch maintenance policy

Our `_start_span()` method does a bunch of
llmobs-instrumentation/modifications under the hood, even if LLMObs is
disabled. Specifically our
llm/task/tool/agent/retrieval/workflow/embeddings() methods only log a
warning if ML_APP is missing, but still route to our `_start_span()`
method, which then continues on to do a ML_APP check (and raises if this
is missing), even if LLMObs is disabled. This means if ML_APP is
missing, any manual instrumentation will break customer apps if they
disable LLMObs.

We need to make `_start_span()` a no-op wrapper around
`tracer.trace(...)`. This fix ensures that if llmobs is disabled, we
return the span immediately before we start doing llmobs-specific logic.

## Checklist
- [x] PR author has checked that all the criteria below are met
- The PR description includes an overview of the change
- The PR description articulates the motivation for the change
- The change includes tests OR the PR description describes a testing
strategy
- The PR description notes risks associated with the change, if any
- Newly-added code is easy to change
- The change follows the [library release note
guidelines](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/releasenotes.html)
- The change includes or references documentation updates if necessary
- Backport labels are set (if
[applicable](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting))

## Reviewer Checklist
- [x] Reviewer has checked that all the criteria below are met
- Title is accurate
- All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
- Avoids breaking
[API](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/versioning.html#interfaces)
changes
- Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
- Newly-added code is easy to change
- Release note makes sense to a user of the library
- If necessary, author has acknowledged and discussed the performance
implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
- Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the
[release branch maintenance
policy](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting)

(cherry picked from commit 17ce936)
@github-actions github-actions bot requested review from a team as code owners June 20, 2025 21:09
@github-actions github-actions bot requested review from ZStriker19 and nsrip-dd June 20, 2025 21:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant