Closed GregMefford closed 6 years ago
Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
lib/spandex.ex | 12 | 14 | 85.71% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 17 | 19 | 89.47% | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 329: | -0.2% |
Covered Lines: | 197 |
Relevant Lines: | 240 |
Oh... now that I'm working on implementing the thing that sends the spans with their sampling priorities, Datadog wants to have that one each span and we don't send over the trace context when we send spans to the Sender
API. I think we should do that in oder to support propagating this kind of data to a back-end. I'm not sure how other systems (Zipkin/Jaeger) do this, but I assume that if we were to pass the set of completed Span
structs and the SpanContext
struct, that would capture all the required information. It's another API breakage, though.
We only send the span list? That sounds wrong :/
As in a bad decision, I mean. I think we'll just have to break that API. I doubt there are many people with custom adapters right now, and if they need to upgrade it should be a very easy path.
Ebert has finished reviewing this Pull Request and has found:
You can see more details about this review at https://ebertapp.io/github/spandex-project/spandex/pulls/74.
Related to https://github.com/spandex-project/spandex_datadog/pull/3, this creates a new
Spandex.SpanContext
struct that we can use to control the API around distributed trace contexts.Resolves #72