-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 453
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
Add few debug level internal logs to PeriodicReader #2277
Add few debug level internal logs to PeriodicReader #2277
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2277 +/- ##
=======================================
- Coverage 79.5% 79.5% -0.1%
=======================================
Files 121 121
Lines 20960 20974 +14
=======================================
+ Hits 16673 16684 +11
- Misses 4287 4290 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@@ -251,6 +257,10 @@ impl<RT: Runtime> PeriodicReaderWorker<RT> { | |||
async fn process_message(&mut self, message: Message) -> bool { | |||
match message { | |||
Message::Export => { | |||
otel_debug!( | |||
name: "PeriodicReader.ExportMessageReceived", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Message
and channels are implementation related terms. I think we should use more generic and intuitive terms for event names such as these:
PeriodicReader.ExportTriggered
PeriodicReader.ForceFlushCalled
PeriodicReader.ShutdownCalled
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not related to this comment, but just wondering if it should be fine to include implementation-specific terms in debug
macros, as they're not intended for the end user?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think its inevitable that we need to use implementation specific terms in some places. My only goal is to restrict them to TRACE/DEBUG level logs only.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's use user-friendly names wherever possible for any log level? It would make the collected logs more readable. It would also save the effort of renaming event names, if at all we change the underlying implementation details.
We can use implementation details in the event name, when it's indeed inevitable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that's the plan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR is just adding some debug logs, so I can see some logs without having to "trigger" an error condition to see a log, and see if self-diag example can be removed. (#2274 (comment))
Debug level, only for troubleshooting deep.
Need to find a common style like whether every Message should end with a period etc. in the future.