system-metrics: Add cpython.gc.collections metric

[david-gang]

Description

Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Fixes #3549

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

How Has This Been Tested?

The change is trivial as

opentelemetry-python-contrib/instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-system-metrics/tests/test_system_metrics.py

Line 952 in b74633a

self._test_metrics(

already tests autimatically the new metrics. The same callback is used.

Does This PR Require a Core Repo Change?

• Yes. - Link to PR:
• No.

Checklist:

See contributing.md for styleguide, changelog guidelines, and more.

• Followed the style guidelines of this project
• Changelogs have been updated
• Unit tests have been added - No need as the same metric with the same callback already exist
• Documentation has been updated - By my understanding should be created automatically

I try to keep this pr as small as possible. After this is merged i want to add the cpython.gc.collected_objects and cpython.gc.uncollectable_objects metrics from https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions/blob/2bc97890c1ad82232745b4dd74fd3144476b6a5c/docs/runtime/cpython-metrics.md#metric-cpythongccollected_objects

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: emdneto / name: Emídio Neto (63bceec)
• ✅ login: david-gang / name: David Gang (8a51981)
• ✅ login: aabmass / name: Aaron Abbott (21acd7f, 965736e)

[david-gang]

Short question: Should we comment that the old metric is deprecated ?

[david-gang]

@emdneto may you please take another look on the PR and see that all your comments were addressed?

[david-gang]

@emdneto The failing test is not connected to this PR. Interesting why this happens. It fails in the sqlalchemy tests which was not touched here.

On my local machine the same test passes:

Looks like some flakiness.

tox -e pypy39-test-instrumentation-sqlalchemy-0 -- -ra
.....
.....
============================================================================== short test summary info ==============================================================================
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:108: only run async tests for 1.4
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:349: only run async tests for 1.4
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:384: only run async tests for 1.4
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:461: only run async tests for 1.4
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:422: only run async tests for 1.4
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:502: only run async tests for 1.4
SKIPPED [1] instrumentation/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sqlalchemy/tests/test_sqlalchemy.py:648: only run async tests for 1.4
==================================================================== 36 passed, 7 skipped, 459 warnings in 0.51s ====================================================================
  pypy39-test-instrumentation-sqlalchemy-0: OK (0.75=setup[0.01]+cmd[0.74] seconds)
  congratulations :) (0.98 seconds)

[david-gang]

Hi @emdneto, how can we move this forward? The failing unit test doesn’t seem related to my changes, and I don’t have permissions to re-run the workflow. The PR is already approved — is there anything else needed to get it merged?

[aabmass]

@david-gang if there are any open comments that you've fixed, please hit the resolve button and I can get this merged

[david-gang]

@david-gang if there are any open comments that you've fixed, please hit the resolve button and I can get this merged

Thanks for clarifying this. In the companies I worked, the reviewers wanted to resolve the conversations themselves. I will do this here.

[david-gang]

@david-gang if there are any open comments that you've fixed, please hit the resolve button and I can get this merged

Thanks for clarifying this. In the companies I worked, the reviewers wanted to resolve the conversations themselves. I will do this here.

@aabmass i resolved all open conversations.

[david-gang]

Short question: Should we comment that the old metric is deprecated ?

@aabmass do we want to deprecate the old metrics in this PR or in a seperate one? if in this pr, how is this done?

[aabmass]

No worries, we are flexible here :)

Short question: Should we comment that the old metric is deprecated ?

@aabmass do we want to deprecate the old metrics in this PR or in a seperate one? if in this pr, how is this done?

Great question, I don't think we have any solid process for this. I would recommend at least mentioning it in the release notes.

@emdneto any thoughts?

[emdneto]

No worries, we are flexible here :)

Short question: Should we comment that the old metric is deprecated ?

@aabmass do we want to deprecate the old metrics in this PR or in a seperate one? if in this pr, how is this done?

Great question, I don't think we have any solid process for this. I would recommend at least mentioning it in the release notes.

@emdneto any thoughts?

Thanks @aabmass and @david-gang We should remove that in a separate one once everything is Stable. I believe already have a deprecation notice for process.runtime stuff?

[aabmass]

SGTM thank you for the contribution