Open
Conversation
Owner
|
Hey @petyosi. Unfortunately the issue is a bit more complicated than just allowing the generation of a different traceID. The thing that we would certainly need to implement is for an IDGenerator to specify if the traces generated by it are compatible with Trace Context level 2 Random Flag. And we need to make sure we actually set the correct flag in the SpanContext. The other thing I was wondering, especially with the ulids, are they compatible with the TraceContext headers? Or would we have to force people to use different Trace Propagation settings if they aren't using the built-in generators? |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This change allows the configuration of the span id/trace id generators. We're using ULIDs:
pydantic/logfire#783.
Discussion:
open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#1947 (comment)
This PR will mechanically clash with #194, because it's touching the same lines. I'm happy to help with the conflict resolution, it's a fairly simple one.