Overhaul process command-line resource conventions. by Oberon00 · Pull Request #1137 · open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification

Oberon00 · 2020-10-23T14:26:32Z

Fixes #831, fixes #997

Changes

Splits process.runtime as a separate semantic convention from process (fixes Reconsider required property for process.* semantic conventions #997)
No longer require PID in any case (would also fix Reconsider required property for process.* semantic conventions #997, but this is mainly for languages where the pid is not available)
Split process.command_args from process.command_line (fixes process.command_line accepts multiple value types #831).

arminru · 2020-10-23T14:29:13Z

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

+On Windows and other systems where the native format of process commands is a single string,
+`process.command_args` can additionally (or instead) be used.
+
+At least one of `process.executable.name`, `process.executable.path`, `process.command`, `process.command_line` or `process.command_args` is required.


What if someone only wants to report the PID for whatever reason? What about:

Suggested change

At least one of `process.executable.name`, `process.executable.path`, `process.command`, `process.command_line` or `process.command_args` is required.

At least one of `process.executable.name`, `process.executable.path`, `process.command`, `process.command_line` or `process.command_args` is required to allow back ends to identify the executable.

This paragraph was already there previously, I just added the command_args alternative.

Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

Oberon00 · 2020-10-23T15:13:54Z

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

+
+For backwards compatibility with older versions of this semantic convention,
+it is possible but deprecated to use an array as type for `process.command_line`.
+In that case it MUST be interpreted as if it was `process.command_args`.


I added this paragraph to keep the change non-breaking but I would be happy to remove it if deemed unnecessary.

arminru

LGTM. I'd prefer to remove the backwards-compatibility part as mentioned in the comment, however.

arminru · 2020-10-23T15:17:16Z

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

+
+For backwards compatibility with older versions of this semantic convention,
+it is possible but deprecated to use an array as type for `process.command_line`.
+In that case it MUST be interpreted as if it was `process.command_args`.


Suggested change

For backwards compatibility with older versions of this semantic convention,

it is possible but deprecated to use an array as type for `process.command_line`.

In that case it MUST be interpreted as if it was `process.command_args`.

I'm not sure if we want to keep backwards compatibility here since the previous solution was a bit unclean IMHO. We don't have multiple types (string and array of strings in this case) for the same attribute anywhere else, which is also why we weren't able to pour these into YAML definitions for the markdown and constants generator tool yet. While not making interpretation impossible, I think it would still be easier for consumers and overall cleaner if we can stick to one well-defined type per attribute.

I would be +1 for a breaking change here if we can settle on this before GA (which I hope we can). The strict trace spec freeze does not apply to semantic conventions as far as I know.

I think we would still declare command_line as non-array string in the YAML and have this text just there in the markdown as prose. We should clarify that the MUST only applies for those that choose to support this at at all (which should be a MAY).

I will register that I don't understand why it matters if a value can take on more than one type. I didn't see a problem with command_line being a string or a list. I really wish I knew how people plan on using this information such that the this distinction matters. 😁

For one, this is not supported by the current semantic convention tool, which is why this file has no corresponding YAML yet.

jmacd · 2020-10-27T07:32:30Z

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

+
+For backwards compatibility with older versions of this semantic convention,
+it is possible but deprecated to use an array as type for `process.command_line`.
+In that case it MUST be interpreted as if it was `process.command_args`.


I will register that I don't understand why it matters if a value can take on more than one type. I didn't see a problem with command_line being a string or a list. I really wish I knew how people plan on using this information such that the this distinction matters. 😁

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

Oberon00 · 2020-10-30T10:04:50Z

@anuraaga Could you please review again? I fixed the issue you mentioned.

Oberon00 · 2020-11-03T10:11:51Z

This PR formally fulfills the requirements for being merged. So I guess if you want to still review (@anuraaga?) please do so quickly.

anuraaga

So sorry for the late review - having trouble differentiating mentions from review requests in GitHub notifications and need to figure out a way to better handle them.

arminru · 2020-11-03T10:50:31Z

@anuraaga On https://github.com/pulls ("Pull requests" in Github's title bar) there is a filter called "Mentioned". That one shows all PRs on which you were mentioned at any point, thus also PRs where you were only mentioned in the description or an old comment, but it's better than nothing 🙂

anuraaga · 2020-11-03T10:58:05Z

@arminru Yeah I generally use github.com/notifications and it has a link for mentions. I need to get used to clicking it at least once a day :D

) Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>

Clean up process resource conventions.

4787372

Oberon00 added area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:resource Related to the specification/resource directory labels Oct 23, 2020

Oberon00 changed the title ~~Clean up process resource conventions.~~ Overhaul process resource conventions. Oct 23, 2020

Update CHANGELOG.

ac2d626

Oberon00 marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2020 14:30

Oberon00 requested review from a team October 23, 2020 14:30

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

arminru reviewed Oct 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

arminru self-assigned this Oct 23, 2020

arminru requested review from a team October 23, 2020 14:47

Oberon00 and others added 2 commits October 23, 2020 16:47

Add backwards compatiblity note.

4251ea0

Update specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

78fd429

Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Oberon00 requested a review from anuraaga October 23, 2020 14:58

arminru mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2020

Run "Auto Assign" workflow once draft PRs are ready for review #1138

Merged

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Fix duplicated process.runtime attributes.

de9b8ec

arminru reviewed Oct 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Oberon00 commented Oct 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

arminru approved these changes Oct 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Oct 23, 2020

process.command_line accepts multiple value types #831

Closed

Reconsider required property for process.* semantic conventions #997

Closed

jmacd approved these changes Oct 27, 2020

View reviewed changes

jmacd changed the title ~~Overhaul process resource conventions.~~ Overhaul process command-line resource conventions. Oct 27, 2020

pmm-sumo mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2020

Clarify pluralization guidelines for semantic conventions #1115

Closed

Oberon00 mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2020

Support process.runtime.* resource attributes open-telemetry/opentelemetry-java#1908

Closed

anuraaga reviewed Oct 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update specification/resource/semantic_conventions/process.md

45146b9

Oberon00 requested review from MrAlias, anuraaga and james-bebbington October 28, 2020 14:52

anuraaga approved these changes Nov 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

arminru merged commit b1b5b76 into open-telemetry:master Nov 3, 2020

arminru deleted the issue-997-runtime-process branch November 3, 2020 10:50

Oberon00 mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2020

Rework headings of process semantic convention, add TOC. #1191

Merged

iNikem mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2020

Add middleware to process semantic conventions #1194

Closed

Oberon00 mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2020

Yaml files for process semantic convention #1227

Merged

lmolkova mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2024

Process: replace constraints with requirement levels and note open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#863

Merged

2 tasks

carlosalberto pushed a commit to carlosalberto/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024

Overhaul process command-line resource conventions. (open-telemetry#1137

230c49f

) Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>

schmikei pushed a commit to schmikei/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2025

Overhaul process command-line resource conventions. (open-telemetry#1137

9ec26f3

) Co-authored-by: Armin Ruech <armin.ruech@dynatrace.com>

	At least one of `process.executable.name`, `process.executable.path`, `process.command`, `process.command_line` or `process.command_args` is required.
	At least one of `process.executable.name`, `process.executable.path`, `process.command`, `process.command_line` or `process.command_args` is required to allow back ends to identify the executable.

Conversation

Oberon00 commented Oct 23, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Changes

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

arminru left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Oberon00 commented Oct 30, 2020

Uh oh!

Oberon00 commented Nov 3, 2020

Uh oh!

anuraaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

arminru commented Nov 3, 2020

Uh oh!

anuraaga commented Nov 3, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Oberon00 commented Oct 23, 2020 •

edited

Loading