Move the evaluated value from the event body to attributes #1990
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | ||
| # Use this changelog template to create an entry for release notes. | ||
| # | ||
| # If your change doesn't affect end users you should instead start | ||
| # your pull request title with [chore] or use the "Skip Changelog" label. | ||
|
|
||
| # One of 'breaking', 'deprecation', 'new_component', 'enhancement', 'bug_fix' | ||
| change_type: breaking | ||
|
|
||
| # The name of the area of concern in the attributes-registry, (e.g. http, cloud, db) | ||
| component: feature_flag | ||
|
|
||
| # A brief description of the change. Surround your text with quotes ("") if it needs to start with a backtick (`). | ||
| note: Move the evaluated value from the event body to attributes | ||
|
|
||
| # Mandatory: One or more tracking issues related to the change. You can use the PR number here if no issue exists. | ||
| # The values here must be integers. | ||
| issues: [1990] | ||
|
|
||
| # (Optional) One or more lines of additional information to render under the primary note. | ||
| # These lines will be padded with 2 spaces and then inserted directly into the document. | ||
| # Use pipe (|) for multiline entries. | ||
| subtext: |
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
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
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
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -93,3 +93,40 @@ groups: | |
| stability: development | ||
| examples: ["Flag `header-color` expected type `string` but found type `number`"] | ||
| brief: A message explaining the nature of an error occurring during flag evaluation. | ||
| - id: feature_flag.result.value | ||
| type: string | ||
| stability: development | ||
| examples: ["#ff0000", "1", "true"] | ||
| brief: The evaluated value of the feature flag represented as a JSON string. | ||
| note: | | ||
| With some feature flag providers, feature flag results can be quite large or contain private or sensitive details. | ||
| Because of this, `feature_flag.result.variant` is often the preferred attribute if it is available. | ||
|
|
||
| It may be desirable to redact or otherwise limit the size and scope of `feature_flag.result.value` if possible. | ||
| Because the evaluated flag value is unstructured and may be any type, it left to the instrumentation author to determine how best to achieve this. | ||
| - id: feature_flag.result.type | ||
| type: | ||
| members: | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm currently missing |
||
| - id: string | ||
| value: "string" | ||
| brief: The `feature_flag.result.value` is a string. | ||
| stability: development | ||
| - id: number | ||
| value: "number" | ||
| brief: The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified number. | ||
| stability: development | ||
| - id: boolean | ||
| value: "boolean" | ||
| brief: The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified boolean. | ||
| stability: development | ||
| - id: object | ||
| value: "object" | ||
| brief: The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified object. | ||
| stability: development | ||
| - id: array | ||
| value: "array" | ||
| brief: The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified array. | ||
| stability: development | ||
| stability: development | ||
| examples: ["string", "boolean", "number"] | ||
| brief: The JSON type of the `feature_flag.result.value`. | ||
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
An object may be massive. Should we be worried about size or leave that up to the implementor?
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.
can you mention this in the
notesfor this attribute? we discussed large attributes in the log/event SIG just yesterday as this is also an issue coming up in GenAI events. we currently want these to (generally) go into event attributes, and are exploring ways to indicate these (potentially) large attributes to pipelines/backends so they can choose alternative storage for them if they wantthere's also a case to be made for this to remain in the body if it's going to be large and if it's the central thing reported by the event. e.g. we are still debating whether mobile crash dumps should be reported as an event attribute or event body
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 can add a note. I think it's not expected that it is often large, but it can be. In that case is attribute still appropriate?
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 it's only sometimes large
The evaluation result is obviously important, but we expect variant (a short name that identifies a result) to be used more often. Some systems don't have a concept of variant though
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.
0541629