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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -60,9 +60,11 @@ A `feature_flag.evaluation` event SHOULD be emitted whenever a feature flag valu | |
| |---|---|---|---|---|---| | ||
| | [`feature_flag.key`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | The lookup key of the feature flag. | `logo-color` | `Required` |  | | ||
| | [`error.type`](/docs/attributes-registry/error.md) | string | Describes a class of error the operation ended with. [1] | `provider_not_ready`; `targeting_key_missing`; `provider_fatal`; `general` | `Conditionally Required` [2] |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.result.type`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | The JSON type of the `feature_flag.result.value`. | `string`; `boolean`; `number` | `Conditionally Required` [3] |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.result.value`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | The evaluated value of the feature flag represented as a JSON string. | `#ff0000`; `1`; `true` | `Conditionally Required` [4] |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.variant`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | A semantic identifier for an evaluated flag value. [5] | `red`; `true`; `on` | `Conditionally Required` [6] |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.context.id`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | The unique identifier for the flag evaluation context. For example, the targeting key. | `5157782b-2203-4c80-a857-dbbd5e7761db` | `Recommended` |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.evaluation.error.message`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | A message explaining the nature of an error occurring during flag evaluation. | `Flag `header-color` expected type `string` but found type `number`` | `Recommended` [7] |  | | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Should the be There was a problem hiding this comment. I think this should be (generic) It's essentially what we put in span status description on spans, but don't have a place today to put on events. @lmolkova wdyt? There was a problem hiding this comment. I left it as evaluation because in a failure scenario you might not actually have a result. its the evaluation that fails There was a problem hiding this comment. Created a PR for discussion about generic error.message #1992 |
||
| | [`feature_flag.evaluation.reason`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | The reason code which shows how a feature flag value was determined. | `static`; `targeting_match`; `error`; `default` | `Recommended` |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.provider_name`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | Identifies the feature flag provider. | `Flag Manager` | `Recommended` |  | | ||
| | [`feature_flag.set.id`](/docs/attributes-registry/feature-flag.md) | string | The identifier of the [flag set](https://openfeature.dev/specification/glossary/#flag-set) to which the feature flag belongs. | `proj-1`; `ab98sgs`; `service1/dev` | `Recommended` |  | | ||
|
|
@@ -83,14 +85,18 @@ A `feature_flag.evaluation` event SHOULD be emitted whenever a feature flag valu | |
|
|
||
| **[2] `error.type`:** If and only if an error occurred during flag evaluation. | ||
|
|
||
| **[3] `feature_flag.result.type`:** If and only if `feature_flag.result.value` is set. | ||
|
|
||
| **[4] `feature_flag.result.value`:** If and only if feature flag provider does not supply variant or equivalent concept. Otherwise, `feature_flag.result.value` should be treated as opt-in. | ||
|
|
||
| **[5] `feature_flag.variant`:** A semantic identifier, commonly referred to as a variant, provides a means | ||
| for referring to a value without including the value itself. This can | ||
| provide additional context for understanding the meaning behind a value. | ||
| For example, the variant `red` maybe be used for the value `#c05543`. | ||
|
|
||
| **[6] `feature_flag.variant`:** If feature flag provider supplies a variant or equivalent concept. | ||
|
|
||
| **[7] `feature_flag.evaluation.error.message`:** If and only if an error occurred. It's NOT RECOMMENDED to duplicate the value of `error.type` in `feature_flag.evaluation.error.message`. | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -116,13 +122,16 @@ For example, the variant `red` maybe be used for the value `#c05543`. | |
| | `targeting_match` | The resolved value was the result of a dynamic evaluation, such as a rule or specific user-targeting. |  | | ||
| | `unknown` | The reason for the resolved value could not be determined. |  | | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| `feature_flag.result.type` has the following list of well-known values. If one of them applies, then the respective value MUST be used; otherwise, a custom value MAY be used. | ||
|
|
||
| | Value | Description | Stability | | ||
| |---|---|---| | ||
| | `boolean` | The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified boolean. |  | | ||
| | `number` | The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified number. |  | | ||
| | `object` | The `feature_flag.result.value` is a stringified object. |  | | ||
| | `string` | The `feature_flag.result.value` is a string. |  | | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- markdownlint-restore --> | ||
| <!-- prettier-ignore-end --> | ||
|
|
||
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 +93,30 @@ | |
| 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. | ||
| - 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 | ||
| 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