tracing: tighten the API to import remote traces#81020
Merged
craig[bot] merged 1 commit intocockroachdb:masterfrom May 15, 2022
Merged
tracing: tighten the API to import remote traces#81020craig[bot] merged 1 commit intocockroachdb:masterfrom
craig[bot] merged 1 commit intocockroachdb:masterfrom
Conversation
Member
|
This change is |
stevendanna
approved these changes
May 6, 2022
Collaborator
stevendanna
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 The symmetry between FinishAndGetRecording and ImportRemoteRecording seems nice.
Contributor
Author
|
TFTR! bors r=stevendanna |
Contributor
|
Build failed: |
Contributor
Author
|
bors r+ |
craig bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2022
81020: tracing: tighten the API to import remote traces r=adityamaru a=adityamaru This change is a cosmetic one. It changes what was previously called `ImportRemoteSpans` to `ImportRemoteRecording`. This is because, the former suggests that the method can be used to import spans from disjointed Recordings but this is not the case. We subsume the remote spans into the receiving span as its children, and while doing so we assume that they all belong to the same recording with the root as the first element of the imported slice. This change will make some of the work being done for #80391 easier to reason about. Release note: None Co-authored-by: Aditya Maru <adityamaru@gmail.com>
Contributor
|
Build failed: |
Contributor
Author
|
bors r+ |
Contributor
|
Build failed: |
This change is a cosmetic one. It changes what was previously called `ImportRemoteSpans` to `ImportRemoteRecording`. This is because, the former suggests that the method can be used to import spans from disjointed Recordings but this is not the case. We subsume the remote spans into the receiving span as its children, and while doing so we assume that they all belong to the same recording with the root as the first element of the imported slice. This change will make some of the work being done for cockroachdb#80391 easier to reason about. Release note: None
05c95cd to
407f220
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
bors r+ |
Contributor
|
Build failed: |
Contributor
Author
|
Flaked on #80838 |
Contributor
Author
|
Let's try again bors r+ |
Contributor
|
Build succeeded: |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
This change is a cosmetic one. It changes what was previously
called
ImportRemoteSpanstoImportRemoteRecording. This isbecause, the former suggests that the method can be used to
import spans from disjointed Recordings but this is not the case. We
subsume the remote spans into the receiving span as its children,
and while doing so we assume that they all belong to the same recording
with the root as the first element of the imported slice.
This change will make some of the work being done for #80391 easier
to reason about.
Release note: None