[receiver/prometheusremotewrite] Parse labels #35656
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
4 times, most recently
from
5f5d327 to
b36ce75
Compare
|
I don't think we should be putting metric labels into the resource attributes. |
I was in doubt about this one. Since there are three layers of attributes, how do we know where labels should go when transformed into OpenTelemetry metrics? |
Job + Info become service.* labels. Other labels on prom metrics become labels on the otel metric. Labels on target_info become attributes on the resource. The tricky part is that target_info might end up in a different request? We can deal with that in a follow-up |
Oof, I honestly haven't thought about that. This makes this receiver a lot more difficult to write 😬 |
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
b36ce75 to
17df302
Compare
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
17df302 to
3854a92
Compare
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
3854a92 to
1d30b01
Compare
ArthurSens
changed the title
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
1d30b01 to
b59d07e
Compare
|
Alright, PR updated to only handle |
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
b59d07e to
1c9ff80
Compare
dashpole
reviewed
Oct 31, 2024
dashpole
reviewed
Oct 31, 2024
ArthurSens
requested review from
djaglowski,
jmacd,
dmitryax,
TylerHelmuth,
yurishkuro and
codeboten
as code owners
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
f862fe3 to
99e2d15
Compare
dashpole
reviewed
Dec 2, 2024
…c attributes Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
ArthurSens
force-pushed
the
prwreceiver-parselabels
branch
from
99e2d15 to
0f5a554
Compare
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
ArthurSens
commented
Dec 10, 2024
dashpole
reviewed
Dec 10, 2024
dashpole
reviewed
Dec 10, 2024
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
dashpole
reviewed
Dec 12, 2024
Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
dashpole
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2024
dashpole
added
ready to merge
sbylica-splunk
pushed a commit
to sbylica-splunk/opentelemetry-collector-contrib
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2024
#### Description This PR builds on top of open-telemetry#35535, open-telemetry#35565 and open-telemetry#35624. Here we're parsing labels into resource/metric attributes. It's still not great because resource attributes (with exception to `service.namespace`, `service.name` and `service.name.id`) are encoded into a special metric called `target_info`. Metrics related to specific target infos may arrive in separate write requests, so it may be impossible to build the full OTLP metric in a stateless way. In this PR I'm ignoring this problem 😛, and transforming `job` and `instance` labels into resource attributes, while all other labels become scope attributes. Please focus on the latest commit when reviewing this PR :) 1c9ff80 --------- Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
mterhar
pushed a commit
to mterhar/opentelemetry-collector-contrib
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2024
#### Description This PR builds on top of open-telemetry#35535, open-telemetry#35565 and open-telemetry#35624. Here we're parsing labels into resource/metric attributes. It's still not great because resource attributes (with exception to `service.namespace`, `service.name` and `service.name.id`) are encoded into a special metric called `target_info`. Metrics related to specific target infos may arrive in separate write requests, so it may be impossible to build the full OTLP metric in a stateless way. In this PR I'm ignoring this problem 😛, and transforming `job` and `instance` labels into resource attributes, while all other labels become scope attributes. Please focus on the latest commit when reviewing this PR :) 1c9ff80 --------- Signed-off-by: Arthur Silva Sens <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
This PR builds on top of #35535, #35565 and #35624.
Here we're parsing labels into resource/metric attributes. It's still not great because resource attributes (with exception to
service.namespace,service.nameandservice.name.id) are encoded into a special metric calledtarget_info. Metrics related to specific target infos may arrive in separate write requests, so it may be impossible to build the full OTLP metric in a stateless way.In this PR I'm ignoring this problem 😛, and transforming
jobandinstancelabels into resource attributes, while all other labels become scope attributes.Please focus on the latest commit when reviewing this PR :)
1c9ff80