[chore] System Semantic Conventions Non-Normative Guidance #1618
Conversation
braydonk
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like this doc!
I don't think we have similar precedents of "why we designed it in this way" documented (the closest analogy is OTEP), but I wish we had more of these.
We might find a better place for it within the repo over time if we'll have more docs like this.
braydonk
force-pushed
the
system_semconv_non_normative
branch
from
e980f13 to
e051e87
Compare
|
Did a first pass of easy comments to address, will make some time soon to go through the comments that require more thought! |
| * General disk and network metrics | ||
| * Universal system/process information (names, identifiers, basic specs) | ||
|
|
||
| Some Specialist Class examples: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While the whole description of the rationale here is exactly how it should be, I think we miss the part of having a set of rules/guidelines/sanity-checks that would help somebody in the future to decide into which directory a metric or attribute fall into. This might not be quite easy to define because of the nature of this problem but maybe it would worth adding a section in the bottom suggesting how this kind of situations should be handled in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do have a case study below for process.linux.cgroup; perhaps I can adapt this to more general rules?
| * Machine name | ||
| * ID (relevant to its context, could be a cloud provider ID or just base machine ID) | ||
| * OS information (platform, version, architecture, etc) | ||
| * Number of CPU cores |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this can be "CPU information" instead? We have a bunch of those here
|
What is missing for this to be merged? |
|
I'm finishing up edits for the remaining open comments, will be pushing this morning. |
This PR adds non-normative guidance from the System Semantic Conventions Working Group. This is added in a new `groups` folder in `non-normative`, and a `system` subfolder in `groups`. The docs written here were already discussed in a Google doc where we were originally collaborating on this, a link to which can be shared directly if needed.
braydonk
force-pushed
the
system_semconv_non_normative
branch
from
e051e87 to
01f43e9
Compare
|
I've pushed up two new commits: 487af83: Addresses review comments. I will re-request review from those who still had open comments. 01f43e9: To address the issue with the markdown files having really long lines, I have set up Prettier to apply to these markdown files and wrap them at 80 characters. Did this in a separate commit so it wasn't too difficult to see exactly how I addressed open comments. |
|
PTAL at the related #1707 - it's my attempt to document overall semconv guidance (only attribute definition so far). There are some intersections. |
|
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days. |
|
@braydonk it'd be awesome to get it merged. Is there anything controversial that we can't follow up on later? |
|
@lmolkova if the latest conversation is resolved, then I don't think there's anything controversial left here. I think much of that system prefix naming discussion has moved to #1711 and related PRs, so if any of that marks a meaningful shift in guidance I can follow up and update the guidance. Other than that, I'm all set for merge! |
Changes
This PR adds non-normative guidance from the System Semantic Conventions Working Group. This is added in a new
groupsfolder innon-normative, and asystemsubfolder ingroups. The docs written here were already discussed in a Google doc where we were originally collaborating on this, a link to which can be shared directly if needed.Merge requirement checklist
[chore]