-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 768
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
Link JMS receive span with the producer span #6804
Link JMS receive span with the producer span #6804
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you very much Mateusz. We tested your branch it is all working, also Propagator substitution with extension SPI is working
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I understand it correctly then
Line 72 in da3eecf
private static Instrumenter<ReceiveRequest, GetResponse> createReceiveInstrumenter() { |
Good find 👍 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
Similar to #6804, but for RabbitMQ. Also changed the span kind of the receive span to `CONSUMER`, to match the spec.
Resolves open-telemetry#6779 In JMS you can have either the consumer receive span or the consumer process span (unlike Kafka, where the process span is always there and the receive span is just an addition) - in scenarios where polling (receive) is used, I think it makes sense to add links to the producer span to preserve the producer-consumer connection. Current messaging semantic conventions don't really describe a situation like this one, but the open-telemetry/oteps#220 OTEP mentions that links might be used in a scenario like this one - which makes me think that adding links here might be a not that bad idea.
Similar to open-telemetry#6804, but for RabbitMQ. Also changed the span kind of the receive span to `CONSUMER`, to match the spec.
Resolves open-telemetry#6779 In JMS you can have either the consumer receive span or the consumer process span (unlike Kafka, where the process span is always there and the receive span is just an addition) - in scenarios where polling (receive) is used, I think it makes sense to add links to the producer span to preserve the producer-consumer connection. Current messaging semantic conventions don't really describe a situation like this one, but the open-telemetry/oteps#220 OTEP mentions that links might be used in a scenario like this one - which makes me think that adding links here might be a not that bad idea.
Similar to open-telemetry#6804, but for RabbitMQ. Also changed the span kind of the receive span to `CONSUMER`, to match the spec.
Resolves open-telemetry#6779 In JMS you can have either the consumer receive span or the consumer process span (unlike Kafka, where the process span is always there and the receive span is just an addition) - in scenarios where polling (receive) is used, I think it makes sense to add links to the producer span to preserve the producer-consumer connection. Current messaging semantic conventions don't really describe a situation like this one, but the open-telemetry/oteps#220 OTEP mentions that links might be used in a scenario like this one - which makes me think that adding links here might be a not that bad idea.
Similar to open-telemetry#6804, but for RabbitMQ. Also changed the span kind of the receive span to `CONSUMER`, to match the spec.
Resolves #6779
In JMS you can have either the consumer receive span or the consumer process span (unlike Kafka, where the process span is always there and the receive span is just an addition) - in scenarios where polling (receive) is used, I think it makes sense to add links to the producer span to preserve the producer-consumer connection. Current messaging semantic conventions don't really describe a situation like this one, but the open-telemetry/oteps#220 OTEP mentions that links might be used in a scenario like this one - which makes me think that adding links here might be a not that bad idea.