docs: point zipkin config at non-deprecated `spawn_upstream_span`

[isker]

Commit Message: The property on Router is deprecated and points at spawn_upstream_span. Use that instead. Additional Description: Risk Level: Low Testing: N/A Docs Changes: Yes Release Notes: N/A Platform Specific Features: N/A

[repokitteh-read-only[bot]]

Docs for this Pull Request will be rendered here:

https://storage.googleapis.com/envoy-pr/32535/docs/index.html

The docs are (re-)rendered each time the CI envoy-presubmit (precheck docs) job completes.

:cat:

Caused by: https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/32535 was opened by isker.

see: more, trace.

[repokitteh-read-only[bot]]

CC @envoyproxy/api-shepherds: Your approval is needed for changes made to (api/envoy/|docs/root/api-docs/). envoyproxy/api-shepherds assignee is @abeyad CC @envoyproxy/api-watchers: FYI only for changes made to (api/envoy/|docs/root/api-docs/).

:cat:

Caused by: https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/32535 was opened by isker.

see: more, trace.

[isker]

https://storage.googleapis.com/envoy-pr/4630c4c/docs/api-v3/config/trace/v3/zipkin.proto.html

[wbpcode]

I think the split_spans_for_request should also be deprecated and use the spawn_upstream_span as the unique option to control the tracing.

But I still have no time to do that for now.

[abeyad]

assigning @wbpcode for maintainer approval

[wbpcode]

Thanks for you contribution to make it more clear. But I am now inclined to deprecate this zipkin field directly in favor of spawm_upstream_span in the zipkin.

/wait-any

[isker]

Are you going to do that?

[wbpcode]

Nope. I am going to do that but haven't started it now. It would be very apprecated if you are interest it and want to take over it.

[isker]

It’s not clear to me why you think my change in this PR, which exists and is mergable now, is mutually exclusive with your proposed change, which is not.

I agree that your proposed change makes sense and should be done. But I am not going to do it, because it will take more time and effort than I am willing to spend.

In light of this, please either merge this PR or close it.

[wbpcode]

Thanks and sorry for your time and effort that have paid.

It’s not clear to me why you think my change in this PR, which exists and is mergable now, is mutually exclusive with your proposed change, which is not.

Because in the design of these APIs, split_spans_for_request is designed to work with start_child_span in the router. And the spawn_upstream_span is designed to replace both of split_spans_for_reqest (or similar requirement in other tracers, like open telemetry) and start_child_span at same time.

I hope the comment of the API could clearly show the design intension. But the new patch may indicate that the split_spans_for_request will works together with the spawn_upstream_span but it isn't what we want finally.

Thanks again, and sorry again.

[github-actions[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Please feel free to give a status update now, ping for review, or re-open when it's ready. Thank you for your contributions!

[wbpcode]

https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/pull/32672