Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.48%. Comparing base (d80ba7b) to head (0f30fd1).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1255      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.43%   62.48%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          65       65              
  Lines        4020     4025       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         2510     2515       +5     
  Misses       1278     1278              
  Partials      232      232              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Is this coming from a specific need? I find this to be a bit weird. It introduces a mismatch between the component name and the actual package name.

getComponent is used for labels and it was generating different labels from the commonly used ones {componentType}/{ComponentName} , and some packages have {componentType}/{componentName}{componentType}

open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib#42826 (comment)

Is this coming from a specific need? I find this to be a bit weird. It introduces a mismatch between the component name and the actual package name.

This is collector-specific, I think the reason for this was that some components had a name so long that not doing this made it so we would reach label length limits 😅

@dmathieu I understand this change makes issuegenerator less useful in context other than the Collector's. On githubgen we went with this option:

that made the tool a bit more generic while still satisfying this use case. Do you think that is an acceptable way of doing this?

This change is fine by me. The only other user of issuegenerator (that I know of) is ebpf-profiler, it has a single go module and no tags are set on issue generation. So this is fine.