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

RUMM-2133 Register Tracing v1 in DatadogCore #857

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 23, 2022

Conversation

maxep
Copy link
Member

@maxep maxep commented May 17, 2022

What and why?

Register Tracing v1 in DatadogCore.

How?

Remove TracingFeature.instance singleton and other static access and expect a DatadogCoreProtocol complying instance when creating a Tracer, defaultDatadogCore is used by default.

Review checklist

  • Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration)
  • Make sure each commit and the PR mention the Issue number or JIRA reference
  • Add CHANGELOG entry for user facing changes

Custom CI job configuration (optional)

  • Run unit tests
  • Run integration tests
  • Run smoke tests

@maxep maxep changed the title Register Tracing v1 in DatadogCore RUMM-2133 Register Tracing v1 in DatadogCore May 17, 2022
@maxep maxep self-assigned this May 17, 2022
@maxep maxep changed the title RUMM-2133 Register Tracing v1 in DatadogCore RUMM-2133 Register Tracing v1 in DatadogCore May 17, 2022
@maxep maxep force-pushed the maxep/RUMM-2133/register-v1-tracing branch from 3779a79 to 7b23edb Compare May 19, 2022 12:49
@maxep maxep marked this pull request as ready for review May 19, 2022 12:51
@maxep maxep requested a review from a team as a code owner May 19, 2022 12:51
Copy link
Member

@ncreated ncreated left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good 👌👌

Comment on lines -273 to +274
loggingFeatureAdapter: logging.flatMap { LoggingForTracingAdapter(loggingFeature: $0) },
loggingFeatureAdapter: logging.map { LoggingForTracingAdapter(loggingFeature: $0) },
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just wonder, was map always possible in such context or has it changed when compactMap was introduced?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

map was always possible here as we return a non-optional value. map is just syntactically more correct!

@maxep maxep merged commit 6063e08 into feature/v2 May 23, 2022
@maxep maxep deleted the maxep/RUMM-2133/register-v1-tracing branch May 23, 2022 08:42
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants