-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New component: timestamp processor #16562
Comments
@TylerHelmuth can this feature be implemented by transformprocessor? |
I am mostly tracking the timestamp work via this issue: #16067. I think that with a change to returning |
Pinging code owners for processor/transform: @TylerHelmuth @kentquirk @bogdandrutu @evan-bradley. See Adding Labels via Comments if you do not have permissions to add labels yourself. |
I have built this code here: https://github.com/signalfx/splunk-otel-collector/tree/main/pkg/processor/timestamp so the work would consist of taking the code and migrating it upstream. A good example is: https://github.com/signalfx/splunk-otel-collector/blob/main/pkg/processor/timestamp/metric_processor.go#L58 I think the transformprocessor is the right tool to change one timestamp field, but this solution is a bit more generic as it tries to applies to any timestamp reported by any data record. |
Another example:
For each span, we need to change timestamps of start, end, and event timestamps. I think this approach cannot easily be taken with the transform processor. WDYT? |
Discussed SIG meeting 1/25:
|
Closing as there is no path forward and the timestamp processor we use is too narrow for the types of use cases considered. |
The purpose and use-cases of the new component
The purpose of this processor is to change the timestamp of all data that it processes (logs, traces, metrics) by adding or removing a static time duration.
Example configuration for the component
Telemetry data types supported
all
Is this a vendor-specific component?
Sponsor (optional)
No response
Additional context
This was needed at one point as a stop gap solution for one of our PoCs and it's possible the transformprocessor and ottl is a better solution long term. See original discussion #14142
If others find this processor has merit, I can help contribute it to contrib and help maintain it.
The name of the processor might be instead better named "clockskew" - please suggest.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: