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

Standard metric names and semantic conventions #651

Closed
jmacd opened this issue Jun 11, 2020 · 5 comments
Closed

Standard metric names and semantic conventions #651

jmacd opened this issue Jun 11, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
area:api Cross language API specification issue area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions priority:p1 Highest priority level release:required-for-ga Must be resolved before GA release, or nice to have before GA spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory

Comments

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor

jmacd commented Jun 11, 2020

The metrics SIG has been working on guidelines for metric naming: open-telemetry/oteps#108

With that OTEP likely to merge soon, we are ready for the next step, which is to produce standard names and semantic conventions for system and runtime metrics that will be common across OpenTelemetry libraries.

Here's a document with a proposal: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11qSmzD9e7PnzaJPYRFdkkKbjTLrAKmvyQpjBjpJsR2s/edit#gid=0

Here's a second document with another proposal:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WlStcUe2eQoN1y_UF7TOd6Sw7aV_U0lFcLk5kBNxPsY/edit#gid=0

There are a couple of draft and in-progress implementations that await these conventions decisions:

https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-go-contrib/tree/master/instrumentation/runtime

https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-python/tree/master/ext/opentelemetry-ext-system-metrics

We are looking for someone to lead this effort. (CC: @mtwo)

@jmacd jmacd added the spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory label Jun 11, 2020
@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmacd commented Jun 12, 2020

@aabmass
Copy link
Member

aabmass commented Jun 16, 2020

@jmacd were you thinking this should be an OTEP or just a PR to the spec repo?

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmacd commented Jun 16, 2020

I think there's a chance of a substantial debate happening, which makes an OTEP the best choice. That way it would reside alongside open-telemetry/oteps#108 as well.

@carlosalberto carlosalberto added the area:api Cross language API specification issue label Jun 26, 2020
@jmacd jmacd added the release:required-for-ga Must be resolved before GA release, or nice to have before GA label Jun 29, 2020
@mtwo mtwo added this to Required for GA in GA Burndown Jun 29, 2020
@mtwo mtwo added this to Required for GA, needs action. Add label:release:required-for-ga to issues and PRs when moving them to this column. in GA Spec Burndown Jun 29, 2020
@reyang reyang added the priority:p2 Medium priority level label Jul 24, 2020
@carlosalberto carlosalberto added priority:p1 Highest priority level and removed priority:p2 Medium priority level labels Jul 24, 2020
@andrewhsu
Copy link
Member

from issue triage mtg today @bogdandrutu will close this and open a new issue with more deteails

@bogdandrutu
Copy link
Member

A lot of the problems were fixed, and what is left is covered by #600

GA Spec Burndown automation moved this from Required for GA, needs action. Add label:release:required-for-ga to issues and PRs when moving them to this column. to Required for GA, done Oct 16, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:api Cross language API specification issue area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions priority:p1 Highest priority level release:required-for-ga Must be resolved before GA release, or nice to have before GA spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory
Projects
No open projects
GA Burndown
  
Required for GA; add release:required...
GA Spec Burndown
  
Required/Allowed for GA, resolved.
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants