Skip to content
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

Sidekiq messaging.operation name "process" misaligned with semantic conventions #924

Closed
hibachrach opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@hibachrach
Copy link

I notice that the Sidekiq middleware uses the term "process" instead of those specified in the (still experimental) messaging section of the semantic convention specification for the messaging.operation attribute.

Is this a recent change? it seems in #648 it was different which was only a few months ago.

@hibachrach hibachrach changed the title Sidekiq messaging.operation names misaligned with semantic conventions Sidekiq messaging.operation name "process" misaligned with semantic conventions Apr 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2024

👋 This issue has been marked as stale because it has been open with no activity. You can: comment on the issue or remove the stale label to hold stale off for a while, add the keep label to hold stale off permanently, or do nothing. If you do nothing this issue will be closed eventually by the stale bot.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Marks an issue/PR stale label May 4, 2024
@kaylareopelle kaylareopelle removed the stale Marks an issue/PR stale label May 15, 2024
@kaylareopelle
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @hibachrach, thanks for bringing this to our attention! My apologies on the delay in response.

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, so I have a few follow-ups:

  • It looks like process is one of the valid operation categories for the messaging section. Is there a different operation you think would be more accurate in the context of Sidekiq's server?
  • The changes in #648 were made to the client middleware, not the server middleware. They updated send to publish. Is there a different operation that seems more appropriate for the client?
  • Am I misunderstanding your question entirely and there's something else we should be looking into?

@hibachrach
Copy link
Author

No apologies necessary! Appreciate your work in open source 😄

Reading my question again, I have no idea what I as asking. Everything seems fine and my ask doesn't make any sense (perhaps I was looking at the wrong version of the OTel docs). Apologies for the misunderstanding!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants