[feat][es/os] Add missing link and scope fields in dbmodel by Manik2708 · Pull Request #8473 · jaegertracing/jaeger

Manik2708 · 2026-05-03T11:52:11Z

Which problem is this PR solving?

Fixes: [Bug]: ES/OS backend ignore scope and link attributes #8078

Description of the changes

Add scope tags and missing link fields (attributes, tracestate and flags).

Migration Guide: Manual Mapping Updates for Scope and Link Attributes

The first step of the migration guide is optional for every user but second step is mandatory for the users who have turned CreateIndexTemplates off and are managing the mappings manually.

1. Update Existing Indices

You can apply these updates to your current active index using the _mapping API.

💡 Note: Unlike the Template API, the _mapping API is a merge operation by default; existing fields will not be affected. We include dynamic_templates so that new attributes appearing in the current index are correctly mapped.

Note: Replace jaeger-span-YYYY-MM-DD with your actual current index name.

The reason why it is optional is because if you will not do this then you will not be able to see the changes even after upgrading jaeger because jaeger will update the template not mapping which will be reflected in the mappings created in the future. So do this only if you want changes in your present mappings too.

curl -X PUT "http://localhost:9200/jaeger-span-YYYY-MM-DD/_mapping" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d'
{
  "dynamic_templates": [
    {
      "scope_tags_map": {
        "path_match": "scopeTag.*",
        "mapping": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 }
      }
    }
  ],
  "properties": {
    "scopeTag": { "type": "object" },
    "scopeTags": {
      "type": "nested",
      "dynamic": false,
      "properties": {
        "key": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
        "value": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
        "type": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 }
      }
    },
    "references": {
      "type": "nested",
      "properties": {
        "traceState": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
        "flags": { "type": "integer" },
        "tags": {
          "type": "nested",
          "dynamic": false,
          "properties": {
            "key": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
            "value": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
            "type": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}'

2. Update Index Templates (For Future Indices)

This guide provides the specific Elasticsearch API calls required for users who manage their own mappings (CreateIndexTemplates=false). These updates enable storage for the new OpenTelemetry Instrumentation Scope and Span Link attributes.

⚠️ WARNING: The Elasticsearch Template API is a full replacement operation. If you send only the snippet below, it will delete your existing Jaeger mappings (like operationName, startTime, etc.).

You must MERGE these changes into your existing template definition.

Steps to Update:

Fetch your current template:

curl -s "http://localhost:9200/_index_template/jaeger-span" | jq ' .index_templates[0].index_template' > full_template.json

Merge the following fields into the mappings section of your full_template.json:

{
  "dynamic_templates": [
    /* Add these to your existing dynamic_templates list */
    {
      "scope_tags_map": {
        "path_match": "scopeTag.*",
        "mapping": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 }
      }
    }
  ],
  "properties": {
    /* Add these to your existing root properties */
    "scopeTag": { "type": "object" },
    "scopeTags": {
      "type": "nested",
      "dynamic": false,
      "properties": {
        "key": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
        "value": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
        "type": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 }
      }
    },
    /* Update your existing references block with these new fields */
    "references": {
      "type": "nested",
      "properties": {
        /* ... keep your existing refType, traceID, spanID ... */
        "traceState": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
        "flags": { "type": "integer" },
        "tags": {
          "type": "nested",
          "dynamic": false,
          "properties": {
            "key": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
            "value": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 },
            "type": { "type": "keyword", "ignore_above": 256 }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Upload the full updated template:

curl -X PUT "http://localhost:9200/_index_template/jaeger-span" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d @full_template.json

Verification

Verify the update by checking the mapping of any index:

curl -s "http://localhost:9200/jaeger-span-*/_mapping" | jq '.. | .scopeTags?'

How was this change tested?

Integration and Mannual Testing

Mannual Testing

This testing was done to ensure that the query changes are running fine on old data. For this, 1000 traces were sent to jaeger and then a query related to attributes was run to see the number of traces, the result was:

 jaeger git:(main) ✗ curl -s 'http://localhost:16686/api/traces?service=tracegen&tags=%7B%22attr_28%22%3A%22val_989%22%7D' | jq '.data | length'
1

Then this same query was run after changing the branch, rebuilding the jaeger and resending the 1000 traces

jaeger git:(es-scope) ✗ curl -s 'http://localhost:16686/api/traces?service=tracegen&tags=%7B%22attr_28%22%3A%22val_989%22%7D' | jq '.data | length'
2

The change of output from 1 to 2 shows that query ran fine without any error on old data too.

Checklist

I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
I have signed all commits
I have added unit tests for the new functionality
I have run lint and test steps successfully: make lint test

AI Usage in this PR (choose one)

See AI Usage Policy.

None: No AI tools were used in creating this PR
Light: AI provided minor assistance (formatting, simple suggestions)
Moderate: AI helped with code generation or debugging specific parts (In generating migration guide)
Heavy: AI generated most or all of the code changes

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Manik2708 · 2026-05-03T11:56:49Z

Some notes to the reviewer:

The production changes are small but most of the changes are from changing tests and fixtures.
I had the option to break it into separate link and scope issues but then 1 migration guide is better than 2 so I decided to do it in one change.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR addresses ES/OS v2 trace model gaps by adding storage/roundtrip support for OpenTelemetry Instrumentation Scope attributes and Span Link fields (attributes, tracestate, flags), and updates ES query construction so these new fields are searchable (including compatibility handling for older indices).

Changes:

Extend ES v2 dbmodel to include Span.ScopeTags/ScopeTag and Reference.TraceState/Flags/Tags/Tag.
Update OTLP <-> DB model translation to preserve scope attributes and link fields.
Expand ES tag querying fixtures/logic and enable previously skipped integration tests for scope/link attributes.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 17 out of 17 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/to_dbmodel.go	Persist scope attributes on spans and link tracestate/flags/attributes on references.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/from_dbmodel.go	Restore scope attributes and link tracestate/flags/attributes back into OTLP traces.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/fixtures/otel_traces_01.json	Add scope attributes and link tracestate/flags/tags to OTLP fixture.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/fixtures/es_01.json	Update ES span fixture to include scopeTags and reference link fields.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/fixtures/es_01_string_tags.json	Same as above for string-encoded tag values.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/core/reader.go	Expand tag query fields to include scope/reference tags; add ignore_unmapped for new nested paths; merge tags for new fields.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/core/fixtures/query_01.json	Update expected ES query JSON to include scope/reference tag queries.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/core/fixtures/query_02.json	Same for regex query fixture.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/core/fixtures/query_03.json	Same for escaped-regex query fixture.
internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/core/dbmodel/model.go	Add new dbmodel fields for scope tags and link fields.
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/mappings/jaeger-span-6.json	Add mappings for scopeTag/scopeTags and reference traceState/flags/tags.
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/mappings/jaeger-span-7.json	Same mapping updates for ES7.
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/mappings/jaeger-span-8.json	Same mapping updates for ES8.
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/mappings/fixtures/jaeger-span-6.json	Update mapping fixture snapshot.
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/mappings/fixtures/jaeger-span-7.json	Update mapping fixture snapshot.
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/mappings/fixtures/jaeger-span-8.json	Update mapping fixture snapshot.
internal/storage/integration/capabilities/capabilities.go	Stop skipping scope/link attribute integration tests for ES/OS.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 20 out of 20 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

codecov · 2026-05-03T12:38:45Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.31933% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 96.57%. Comparing base (393f160) to head (09e09a1).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/storage/v1/elasticsearch/factory.go	91.66%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8473      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.56%   96.57%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         331      332       +1     
  Lines       17566    17681     +115     
==========================================
+ Hits        16963    17076     +113     
- Misses        454      455       +1     
- Partials      149      150       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger_direct	`8.87% <0.00%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️
badger_e2e	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
cassandra-4.x-direct-manual	`14.43% <0.00%> (-0.13%)`	⬇️
cassandra-4.x-e2e-auto	`1.02% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
cassandra-4.x-e2e-manual	`1.02% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
cassandra-5.x-direct-manual	`14.43% <0.00%> (-0.13%)`	⬇️
cassandra-5.x-e2e-auto	`1.02% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
cassandra-5.x-e2e-manual	`1.02% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
clickhouse-direct	`8.90% <0.00%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️
clickhouse-e2e	`1.15% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
elasticsearch-6.x-direct	`17.07% <42.85%> (+0.19%)`	⬆️
elasticsearch-7.x-direct	`17.10% <42.85%> (+0.19%)`	⬆️
elasticsearch-8.x-direct	`17.25% <42.85%> (+0.19%)`	⬆️
elasticsearch-8.x-e2e	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
elasticsearch-9.x-e2e	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
grpc_direct	`7.83% <0.00%> (-0.07%)`	⬇️
grpc_e2e	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
kafka-3.x-v2	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
memory_v2	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
opensearch-1.x-direct	`17.14% <42.85%> (+0.19%)`	⬆️
opensearch-2.x-direct	`17.14% <42.85%> (+0.19%)`	⬆️
opensearch-2.x-e2e	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
opensearch-3.x-e2e	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
query	`1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
tailsampling-processor	`0.54% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
unittests	`94.92% <98.31%> (+0.05%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 20 out of 20 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

yurishkuro · 2026-05-03T15:49:29Z

I feel like this is a very unfriendly approach for the user. My preference would be

When the new Jaeger version starts it checks if the mapping contains the new settings for the scope (and btw is it just scope or are we making fully OTEL-compatible schema change once?). If they are missing the binary should crash and ask the user to run a migration script.
The migration script applies the schema changes automatically (unless users are using manual templates). It could be a one-off python script, for example.
We can release all of this as a breaking change without actually writing the data in the new OTEL format.

Manik2708 · 2026-05-03T19:06:59Z

I feel like this is a very unfriendly approach for the user. My preference would be

1. When the new Jaeger version starts it checks if the mapping contains the new settings for the scope (and btw is it just scope or are we making fully OTEL-compatible schema change once?). If they are missing the binary should crash and ask the user to run a migration script.

2. The migration script applies the schema changes automatically (unless users are using manual templates). It could be a one-off python script, for example.

3. We can release all of this as a breaking change without actually writing the data in the new OTEL format.

Just two questions: where should that script be placed and how it should be pointed for the users (I mean should we provide the PR link in the error?)

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 31 out of 31 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

+	// Check for scopeTag (Scope attributes)
+	if _, ok = properties["scopeTag"]; !ok {
+		return fmt.Errorf("template %q is missing 'scopeTag' field; please update mappings", templateName)
+	}


Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Manik2708 · 2026-05-15T08:24:30Z

@yurishkuro a gentle reminder to review the pr

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

mahadzaryab1 · 2026-05-25T23:42:51Z

@Manik2708 I'll help with reviewing this PR and have the following suggestions to break it down to make it easier to review:

The migration script can be in a separate PR
Changes to the mock server in a separate PR
Index template changes in a separate PRs (these changes are purely additive so we should be able to land them independently)
Separate PRs for scope and links

Try to open prequel PRs that set up the preparation for this change before making the breaking change itself.

Manik2708 · 2026-05-26T03:30:12Z

@Manik2708 I'll help with reviewing this PR and have the following suggestions to break it down to make it easier to review:

The migration script can be in a separate PR

Changes to the mock server in a separate PR

Index template changes in a separate PRs (these changes are purely additive so we should be able to land them independently)

Separate PRs for scope and links

Try to open prequel PRs that set up the preparation for this change before making the breaking change itself.

Hey, thanks for the reply! My reason of raising one PR as a whole was to test manually on some points, for example turning off the CreateIndexTemplates and seeing if jaeger is crashing right or not and then running the script and rechecking running jaeger (I have uploaded two videos too as a proof). So now how will we testing the PRs? Take an example of migration script, should I write e2e tests for the script? Similar for changes of template.

mahadzaryab1 · 2026-05-26T03:52:20Z

@Manik2708 I'll help with reviewing this PR and have the following suggestions to break it down to make it easier to review:

The migration script can be in a separate PR

Changes to the mock server in a separate PR

Index template changes in a separate PRs (these changes are purely additive so we should be able to land them independently)

Separate PRs for scope and links

Try to open prequel PRs that set up the preparation for this change before making the breaking change itself.

Hey, thanks for the reply! My reason of raising one PR as a whole was to test manually on some points, for example turning off the CreateIndexTemplates and seeing if jaeger is crashing right or not and then running the script and rechecking running jaeger (I have uploaded two videos too as a proof). So now how will we testing the PRs? Take an example of migration script, should I write e2e tests for the script? Similar for changes of template.

I don't think we need e2e tests for the migration script. A manual test should be sufficient. You can spin up an instance of ES and run the migration script it against it and add the results to the PR description.

Manik2708 · 2026-05-26T13:55:53Z

@Manik2708 I'll help with reviewing this PR and have the following suggestions to break it down to make it easier to review:

The migration script can be in a separate PR

Changes to the mock server in a separate PR

Index template changes in a separate PRs (these changes are purely additive so we should be able to land them independently)

Separate PRs for scope and links

Try to open prequel PRs that set up the preparation for this change before making the breaking change itself.

Hey, thanks for the reply! My reason of raising one PR as a whole was to test manually on some points, for example turning off the CreateIndexTemplates and seeing if jaeger is crashing right or not and then running the script and rechecking running jaeger (I have uploaded two videos too as a proof). So now how will we testing the PRs? Take an example of migration script, should I write e2e tests for the script? Similar for changes of template.

I don't think we need e2e tests for the migration script. A manual test should be sufficient. You can spin up an instance of ES and run the migration script it against it and add the results to the PR description.

@mahadzaryab1 I am thinking of 4 PRs as following:

Index Template Changes
Migration script
Reader changes
Verify Span Mapping and crash jaeger if template doesn't consist scope/link fields (breaking change in this PR)
The reason of this is because only the last thing will be a breaking change, does this plan seems right to you?

mahadzaryab1 · 2026-05-30T15:33:39Z

@Manik2708 I'll help with reviewing this PR and have the following suggestions to break it down to make it easier to review:

The migration script can be in a separate PR

Changes to the mock server in a separate PR

Index template changes in a separate PRs (these changes are purely additive so we should be able to land them independently)

Separate PRs for scope and links

Try to open prequel PRs that set up the preparation for this change before making the breaking change itself.

Hey, thanks for the reply! My reason of raising one PR as a whole was to test manually on some points, for example turning off the CreateIndexTemplates and seeing if jaeger is crashing right or not and then running the script and rechecking running jaeger (I have uploaded two videos too as a proof). So now how will we testing the PRs? Take an example of migration script, should I write e2e tests for the script? Similar for changes of template.

I don't think we need e2e tests for the migration script. A manual test should be sufficient. You can spin up an instance of ES and run the migration script it against it and add the results to the PR description.

@mahadzaryab1 I am thinking of 4 PRs as following:

Index Template Changes

Migration script

Reader changes

Verify Span Mapping and crash jaeger if template doesn't consist scope/link fields (breaking change in this PR)
The reason of this is because only the last thing will be a breaking change, does this plan seems right to you?

lgtm!

## Which problem is this PR solving? - Pr-requisite of: #8473 ## Description of the changes - Required changes in index templates as one of the parts of the PR ## How was this change tested? - Unit Tests ## Checklist - [x] I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md - [x] I have signed all commits - [x] I have added unit tests for the new functionality - [x] I have run lint and test steps successfully: `make lint test` ## AI Usage in this PR (choose one) See [AI Usage Policy](https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md#ai-usage-policy). - [x] **None**: No AI tools were used in creating this PR - [ ] **Light**: AI provided minor assistance (formatting, simple suggestions) - [ ] **Moderate**: AI helped with code generation or debugging specific parts - [ ] **Heavy**: AI generated most or all of the code changes Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

…ing#8643) ## Which problem is this PR solving? - Pr-requisite of: jaegertracing#8473 ## Description of the changes - Required changes in index templates as one of the parts of the PR ## How was this change tested? - Unit Tests ## Checklist - [x] I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md - [x] I have signed all commits - [x] I have added unit tests for the new functionality - [x] I have run lint and test steps successfully: `make lint test` ## AI Usage in this PR (choose one) See [AI Usage Policy](https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md#ai-usage-policy). - [x] **None**: No AI tools were used in creating this PR - [ ] **Light**: AI provided minor assistance (formatting, simple suggestions) - [ ] **Moderate**: AI helped with code generation or debugging specific parts - [ ] **Heavy**: AI generated most or all of the code changes Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Victor Chidera Obiezue <obiezuechidera@gmail.com>

yurishkuro · 2026-06-29T05:39:24Z

too many merge conflicts

Manik2708 · 2026-06-29T05:47:04Z

@yurishkuro #8668 is a part of this PR which is blocked due #8691, once we have backward compatibility tests running, it will be easier to merge #8668 and then this PR will be unblocked

Manik2708 added 4 commits May 3, 2026 14:47

init

b888e64

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

migration

b10d961

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

test-fix

bdbca57

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

finish

8cf72b3

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 3, 2026 11:52

Manik2708 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 3, 2026 11:52

dosubot Bot added area/storage enhancement storage/elasticsearch labels May 3, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Manik2708 May 3, 2026 11:52 View session

Manik2708 added 2 commits May 3, 2026 17:23

minimize diff

71abc26

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'main' into es-scope

b9a2e0d

Copilot AI reviewed May 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Manik2708 added 4 commits May 3, 2026 17:30

minor fix

51519d5

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

minor fix

ab9b30a

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

minor fix

d89a593

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

minor fix

c8bcab9

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 3, 2026 12:16

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Manik2708 May 3, 2026 12:16 View session

Copilot AI reviewed May 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

test fix

5bebff8

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Manik2708 requested a review from Copilot May 3, 2026 13:32

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Manik2708 May 3, 2026 13:33 View session

Copilot AI reviewed May 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/to_dbmodel.go

Comment thread internal/storage/v2/elasticsearch/tracestore/to_dbmodel.go

github-actions Bot added the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 3, 2026

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 3, 2026

Copilot AI reviewed May 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Manik2708 requested a review from yurishkuro May 11, 2026 11:09

unused fxn

a10c4bd

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Manik2708 mentioned this pull request May 12, 2026

[es] Replace v8 client with typed client #8566

Closed

8 tasks

minor fixes

49d1465

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 15, 2026 07:58

Merge branch 'main' into es-scope

852fd04

Manik2708 added 4 commits May 16, 2026 16:29

Merge branch 'main' into es-scope

9571937

minor fixes

9c189a9

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'main' into es-scope

c508d04

code coverage

09e09a1

Signed-off-by: Manik Mehta <mehtamanik96@gmail.com>

github-actions Bot added the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 25, 2026

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 26, 2026

github-actions Bot added the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 26, 2026

Manik2708 mentioned this pull request May 26, 2026

[es] Add missing scope and link fields to index templates #8643

Merged

8 tasks

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 26, 2026

github-actions Bot added the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label May 30, 2026

Manik2708 mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2026

RFC 0004: Elasticsearch/OpenSearch Data Streams for span storage #8804

Merged

3 tasks

github-actions Bot removed the waiting-for-author PR is waiting for author to respond to maintainer's comments label Jun 29, 2026

Manik2708 marked this pull request as draft June 29, 2026 07:45

Uh oh!

Conversation

Manik2708 commented May 3, 2026 • edited by yurishkuro Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Which problem is this PR solving?

Description of the changes

Migration Guide: Manual Mapping Updates for Scope and Link Attributes

1. Update Existing Indices

2. Update Index Templates (For Future Indices)

Steps to Update:

Verification

How was this change tested?

Mannual Testing

Checklist

AI Usage in this PR (choose one)

Uh oh!

Manik2708 commented May 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented May 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yurishkuro commented May 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Manik2708 commented May 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Manik2708 commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

mahadzaryab1 commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Manik2708 commented May 26, 2026

Uh oh!

mahadzaryab1 commented May 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Manik2708 commented May 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mahadzaryab1 commented May 30, 2026

Uh oh!

yurishkuro commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Manik2708 commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Manik2708 commented May 3, 2026 •

edited by yurishkuro

Loading

codecov Bot commented May 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Manik2708 commented May 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading