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

Support setting process-wide tags in JaegerExporter constructor #847

Open
TBBle opened this issue Jan 19, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Support setting process-wide tags in JaegerExporter constructor #847

TBBle opened this issue Jan 19, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@TBBle
Copy link

TBBle commented Jan 19, 2020

Is your feature request related to a problem?

In order to work-around jaegertracing/jaeger#1459, we need to add an 'ip' process tag, as Jaeger's Clock Skew Adjustor assumes untagged processes come from different machines, and messes with the timestamps if child spans don't form proper nested subsets.

There's probably other 'process' tags that would be useful, but this is what triggered the need for me.

Describe the solution you'd like.

When instantiating the JaegerExporter, where we pass in the Service Name, I'd like to pass in a python map of process-wide tags as well.

This is consistent with Jaeger's own Python Client, and the OpenCensus Jaeger Exporter's API.

Describe alternatives you've considered.

Since we create the relevant Jaeger object (Process) each time we emit a batch, the process-wide tags could be set after construction of the JaegerExporter.

Additional context.

As a work-around I'm currently monkey-patching the generated Process class to add the ip tag by default, hard-coded to a constant value so that the Clock Skew Adjustor in Jaeger does not corrupt my traces.

Longer-term, it might be work including a few process-wide tags by default (client library version, host IP, hostname), as can be seen in the Jaeger Python client (see references to self.tags).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant