Accept endpoint_id and path_params from client#151
Merged
pquentin merged 4 commits intoelastic:mainfrom Feb 23, 2024
Merged
Conversation
18 tasks
estolfo
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2024
xrmx
reviewed
Feb 22, 2024
Member
xrmx
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Comments to async applies to sync transport too
xrmx
approved these changes
Feb 23, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Relates elastic/elasticsearch-py#2435
This pull request changes
perform_requestto optionally acceptendpoint_idandpath_partsfrom the Elasticsearch client. Coupled with elastic/elasticsearch-py#2457, this fixes the span name:and adds path parts attributes (Elastic APM replaces dots with underscores):
I also added support for AsyncTransport:
It was convenient because the elasticsearch-py changes also apply to the async API, but I can open a separate pull request to bring OTel support to AsyncTransport first if you prefer.
I have done all my testing manually but I do plan to add an integration test in the future.