Bump go.opentelemetry.io/otel to v0.5.0. #18
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
|
Thank you! |
I've only made sufficient changes to get this compiling, there may be further changes to support new features.
charleskorn
changed the title
rghetia
approved these changes
May 14, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
v0.4.3 contains a breaking change that removes the
TraceIDString()andSpanIDString()functions (open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go#642).v0.5.0 moved the
KeyandKeyValuetypes to a new package. There may be other changes required for this library to work correctly with v0.5.0 - I only made enough changes to fix the compilation errors. (Having said that, a cursory glance over the remaining changes inoteldon't appear to require further changes here.)One other thing I noticed was that
attributeValue()intrace_proto.gosilently ignores other kinds of values (eg.INT32,UINT32,FLOAT32) - is this intentional? I would hope that this library would loudly complain if I used a type of attribute it didn't support rather than quietly dropping it.Fixes #17.