-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
[query] Use OTEL's helpers for grpc server #6055
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6055 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.48% 96.45% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 352 352
Lines 19973 20007 +34
==========================================
+ Hits 19270 19297 +27
- Misses 520 526 +6
- Partials 183 184 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@yurishkuro do you have any thoughts on how to handle the sharing of ports problem? |
We should follow our deprecation policy of two versions notice. It means for v2 we can go to new method and distinct port. For v1 we need to print a warning if the same port is used telling the user this will not be supported in the future (call it out in release notes). Then two releases later we switch default to not allow same port but still support it via a special flag (deprecated from start), and then two releases later remove that too. This also means we should have another release tag "deprecated" and change release notes script to have a separate section for it. |
Got it! Let me make some changes. |
4f091a5
to
82044f5
Compare
@yurishkuro do you have any thoughts so far? it looks pretty messy but i'm not sure if there's a cleaner way to do this. |
6f66c71
to
b0ee94f
Compare
@yurishkuro do you know why the all in one test is failing by any chance? |
It seems some unexpected spans are being created. This may not necessary be a bad thing, i.e. we may need to adjust the test to allow that. I'd recommend running the test with commented out |
@yurishkuro This is what I'm seeing in the jaeger UI. What're your thoughts? |
The /api/traces request, is it a GET or a POST? Get is ok to trace, post is not. |
@yurishkuro It looks to be a GET request. |
Ok, then how is it different from how the test worked before your change? Did we not have tracing on that endpoint? |
@yurishkuro It looks like the second trace that's the one that is new |
I think we should improve selectivity of the test - it should not be breaking if some extra trace is created, its objective is to check that the trace it needs is created. |
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
## Which problem is this PR solving? - Towards #6026 ## Description of the changes - Fixes an issue from #6055 where the condition for routing to the legacy implementation was accidentally flipped. ## How was this change tested? - CI ## Checklist - [x] I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/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 - for `jaeger`: `make lint test` - for `jaeger-ui`: `yarn lint` and `yarn test` Signed-off-by: Mahad Zaryab <mahadzaryab1@gmail.com>
This reverts commit c96790a.
Which problem is this PR solving?
Description of the changes
How was this change tested?
Checklist
jaeger
:make lint test
jaeger-ui
:yarn lint
andyarn test