Skip to content
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

Ensure OTLP receiver handles consume errors correctly [OTLP/HTTP] #8038

Closed

Conversation

VihasMakwana
Copy link
Contributor

Description: Follow the receiver contract and return 503 for non-permanent and 400 for permanent errors for OTLP/HTTP receiver.

Leave the "Retry-After" field blank and let the client implement an exponential backoff strategy.

Link to tracking Issue: #4335

@VihasMakwana VihasMakwana requested review from a team and jpkrohling July 5, 2023 13:20
@VihasMakwana VihasMakwana changed the title Consume errors http Ensure OTLP receiver handles consume errors correctly [OTLP/HTTP] Jul 5, 2023
@atoulme
Copy link
Contributor

atoulme commented Jul 5, 2023

Please add tests and changelog.

@VihasMakwana VihasMakwana marked this pull request as draft July 5, 2023 13:47
@VihasMakwana VihasMakwana marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2023 06:28
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 8, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 33.33% and project coverage change: -0.15 ⚠️

Comparison is base (7606f99) 90.96% compared to head (97f2cc7) 90.81%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8038      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.96%   90.81%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         300      300              
  Lines       15090    15117      +27     
==========================================
+ Hits        13726    13729       +3     
- Misses       1091     1115      +24     
  Partials      273      273              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
receiver/otlpreceiver/otlphttp.go 46.72% <33.33%> (-1.07%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Copy link
Member

@jpkrohling jpkrohling left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, but @astencel-sumo might want to take a look as well. We had some discussions about this as part of #7486

@VihasMakwana
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR depends on #8080. Marking as draft for now

@VihasMakwana VihasMakwana marked this pull request as draft July 12, 2023 08:41
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Jul 27, 2023
@jpkrohling
Copy link
Member

ping @astencel-sumo

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Jul 28, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Aug 12, 2023
Comment on lines +960 to +961
permanent bool
nonPermanent bool
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like these fields are unused, can they be removed?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Aug 29, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Closed as inactive. Feel free to reopen if this PR is still being worked on.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Sep 12, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants