EW-9372 EW-9455 [o11y] Report SpanOpen as soon as available, remove CompleteSpan#6051
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
I appreciate you opening this so we can have the entirety of the change to review! #5370 will determine if changes are needed here |
cc51938 to
c302bb5
Compare
38137f6 to
55c8d69
Compare
Merging this PR will not alter performance
Comparing 
Footnotes
|
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #6051 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.89% 70.92% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 438 438
Lines 123833 123768 -65
Branches 19486 19475 -11
==========================================
- Hits 87794 87785 -9
+ Misses 24492 24436 -56
Partials 11547 11547 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
55c8d69 to
f721a57
Compare
30bc3e2 to
e326304
Compare
f721a57 to
f28a6f6
Compare
mar-cf
approved these changes
Mar 18, 2026
e326304 to
a0e61e3
Compare
f28a6f6 to
cc39265
Compare
cc39265 to
9c06191
Compare
fhanau
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 7, 2026
images-api-instrumentation-test uses traceId as its span identification key, which does not uniquely identify spans (unlike spanId). This led to us missing out on spans reported under the same traceId, having span tags be assigned to the wrong span, and changed the test results when reporting span tags earlier, falsely creating the impression that #6051 would introduce span reporting bugs. This can be avoided by using the same tail handler that similar tests already use.
fhanau
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2026
images-api-instrumentation-test uses traceId as its span identification key, which does not uniquely identify spans (unlike spanId). This led to us missing out on spans reported under the same traceId, having span tags be assigned to the wrong span, and changed the test results when reporting span tags earlier, falsely creating the impression that #6051 would introduce span reporting bugs. This can be avoided by using the same tail handler that similar tests already use.
9c06191 to
8fb0f2f
Compare
8fb0f2f to
8b42ac7
Compare
…ompleteSpan [o11y] Adopt event-based observer API [o11y] Restore timestamp handling after interface changes
8b42ac7 to
e250731
Compare
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.
Follow-up to #5370, see that PR for rationale. Also see the downstream PR.
Note: The test changes are needed since SpanOpen is reported earlier now, so the order of tail stream events will change.