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

Add proper error reporting before OpenTelemetry goes GA #599

Closed
arminru opened this issue May 12, 2020 · 8 comments
Closed

Add proper error reporting before OpenTelemetry goes GA #599

arminru opened this issue May 12, 2020 · 8 comments
Labels
area:error-reporting Related to error reporting priority:p2 Medium priority level release:required-for-ga Must be resolved before GA release, or nice to have before GA spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory
Milestone

Comments

@arminru
Copy link
Member

arminru commented May 12, 2020

Reporting errors is an important aspect of tracing/monitoring/observability systems and we should make sure to add proper ways to do so to OpenTelemetry before we go GA without it. Currently we only have the span status defined in the API to mark spans as failed but nothing beyond that.

The current (mostly neglected) proposals out there are:

There also used to be some discussion regarding this on here:
https://gitter.im/open-telemetry/error-events-wg

This issue serves as a tracking issue for milestone v0.5 so we don't forget about error reporting :-)

@arminru arminru added the area:error-reporting Related to error reporting label May 12, 2020
@arminru arminru added this to the v0.5 milestone May 12, 2020
@Oberon00
Copy link
Member

Oberon00 commented May 12, 2020

I'd even argue that the span status does not mark a span as failed. E.g. HTTP 4xx status codes are often not really errors but reported with a non-OK span status. This is discussed in issue #306 (IMHO very relevant to this discussion). EDIT: There are also some related notes in the SIG meeting notes from 10/29/2019 #21

@vmihailenco
Copy link

Does it make sense to align logs and errors? In some systems (including Go) errors are reported as logs / via logging API - therefore whatever is decided in open-telemetry/oteps#97 will heavily influence this.

@arminru
Copy link
Member Author

arminru commented May 26, 2020

Does it make sense to align logs and errors? In some systems (including Go) errors are reported as logs / via logging API - therefore whatever is decided in open-telemetry/oteps#97 will heavily influence this.

@vmihailenco
It could make sense to align them but we certainly need error reporting for GA and logs are out of scope for this, if I'm not mistaking. @tigrannajaryan, am I right?

@bogdandrutu bogdandrutu modified the milestones: v0.5, v0.6 May 26, 2020
@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

Does it make sense to align logs and errors? In some systems (including Go) errors are reported as logs / via logging API - therefore whatever is decided in open-telemetry/oteps#97 will heavily influence this.

I believe we should align Events in Spans (where errors supposedly should/can be recorded) and Standalone Logs. I added this to capture the alignment effort: #622

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

It could make sense to align them but we certainly need error reporting for GA and logs are out of scope for this, if I'm not mistaking. @tigrannajaryan, am I right?

@arminru I think it will still be beneficial to make this alignment even if logs are not in scope and will not be GA-ed at the same time as traces.

@Oberon00 Oberon00 added spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory release:required-for-ga Must be resolved before GA release, or nice to have before GA labels Jul 7, 2020
@Oberon00 Oberon00 added this to Required for GA, needs action. Add label:release:required-for-ga to issues and PRs when moving them to this column. in GA Spec Burndown Jul 7, 2020
@Oberon00
Copy link
Member

Oberon00 commented Jul 7, 2020

I hope adding this to required-for-ga is uncontroversial.

@andrewhsu andrewhsu added priority:p1 Highest priority level priority:p2 Medium priority level and removed priority:p1 Highest priority level labels Jul 17, 2020
@iNikem
Copy link
Contributor

iNikem commented Sep 21, 2020

@andrewhsu @open-telemetry/technical-committee I believe this should now be closed by open-telemetry/oteps#136

@arminru
Copy link
Member Author

arminru commented Sep 21, 2020

Closing since this is about to be resolved by implementing of OTEP 136 which is already tracked in #965.

@arminru arminru closed this as completed Sep 21, 2020
GA Spec Burndown automation moved this from Required for GA, needs action. Add label:release:required-for-ga to issues and PRs when moving them to this column. to Required for GA, done Sep 21, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:error-reporting Related to error reporting priority:p2 Medium priority level release:required-for-ga Must be resolved before GA release, or nice to have before GA spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory
Projects
No open projects
GA Spec Burndown
  
Required/Allowed for GA, resolved.
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants