Skip to content
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

Model change: transaction.id -> transaction.transaction_id #291

Closed
roncohen opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Model change: transaction.id -> transaction.transaction_id #291

roncohen opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@roncohen
Copy link
Contributor

roncohen commented Nov 6, 2017

@gingerwizard pointed out that it would be nice to have the field transaction_id always be called transaction_id across our output model. Today we have transaction.id and trace.transaction_id. Let's change it so it's transaction.transaction_id instead.

This make it easier to filter for a specific transaction for example in a dashboard and show the transaction, all the traces etc. with a single filter

@ruflin
Copy link
Member

ruflin commented Nov 6, 2017

Why not going with transaction.id for the trace and the transaction object? So the trace object would look more like:

{
    "context": {
        ...
    },
    "processor": {
        ...
    },
    "trace": {
        "id": 0,
        ...
        "type": "db.postgresql.query"
    },
    "transaction": {
        "id": "945254c5-67a5-417e-8a4e-aa29efcbfb79",
    }
}

Ignoring the change in implementation this would require, I think it would be what the user expects.

@roncohen
Copy link
Contributor Author

roncohen commented Nov 6, 2017

Nice idea. Let's do that.

@roncohen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed in #345

@ruflin
Copy link
Member

ruflin commented Nov 26, 2017

@roncohen Looking at #345 it seems it's now trace.transaction.id. The idea was to have transaction.id to make it the same for transaction and trace documents.

@roncohen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Created new issue to track this: #357

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants