Skip to content

docs: document implementation matrix #197

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

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

codeboten
Copy link
Contributor

The idea w/ this matrix is to provide end users a clear picture of what is implemented for each language implementation. Ideally, the matrix will be:

  1. auto generated from the kitchen-sink
  2. automatically filled in for every implementation via a test

In the short term, the automation for fill in the implementation details could be manual, but ideally that would be short-lived for the sake of users and implementors.

The idea w/ this matrix is to provide end users a clear picture of what is implemented
for each language implementation. Ideally, the matrix will be:

1. auto generated from the kitchen-sink
2. automatically filled in for every implementation via a test

In the short term, the automation for fill in the implementation details could be manual, but
ideally that would be short-lived for the sake of users and implementors.

Signed-off-by: Alex Boten <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alex Boten <[email protected]>
@jack-berg
Copy link
Member

jack-berg commented Apr 14, 2025

Hey @codeboten - I put together a branch with a little demo that shows how the code generation might work: https://github.com/jack-berg/opentelemetry-configuration/tree/generate-compliance-matrix

It wrote a fast / dirty script to:

  1. Read in all the JSON schema files from ./schema
  2. Resolve all the $refs
  3. Iterate through all the types and generate markdown

See an example of the output of markdown generation here: https://github.com/jack-berg/opentelemetry-configuration/blob/generate-compliance-matrix/schema.md

@marcalff
Copy link
Member

@jack-berg Could you check your demo branch ? I can't see the script or the generated markdown. Thanks.

@jack-berg
Copy link
Member

Oops looks like I had some copy paste errors on the links. Fixed.

This still needs a decent amount of work before its ready for PR, but I think its conceptually right.

@marcalff
Copy link
Member

Oops looks like I had some copy paste errors on the links. Fixed.

This still needs a decent amount of work before its ready for PR, but I think its conceptually right.

Thanks, I can see it now.

Some suggestion below

Instead of presenting:

  • a table with "Property, Type, Description, C++, C#, erlang, etc"

consider presenting:

  • a table with "Property, Type, Description"
  • a table with "Property, C++, C#, erlang, etc"

Also, extension points are missing.

In Samplers for example, I expect an entry for extension points, and the possibility for each SIG to document if extension points are suported or not.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants