John Watson
John Watson
Is the title of this PR correct? Is this just a stepping stone toward being able to have API disabled via some sort of configuration, per scope?
> There's already (experimental) SDK config to disable scopes. This adds (experimental) API surface area which allows instrumentation to inspect whether a scope is disabled, and if yes, avoid unnecessary...
> > So...is the title of this PR incorrect, then? > > I'm not following.. This PR does add an API to check if a particular scope is enabled. >...
> > It might do that indirectly; what it does is add APIs to see if a given tracer/instrument/logger is enabled. Those can be scope associated, but don't have to...
this seems fine to me. Are we waiting for security folks to approve this approach, or should we get this merged for the next release?
@junwense two things: 1) You'll need to sign the CLA before we can accept the code 2) Please add a unit test for this case.
closing, replaced by #6569. @junwense I apologize for messing up your PR, and I have opened up #6569 as the replacement.
What about using the opentelemetry-sdk-testing artifact? It is specifically designed to enable writing unit tests for your telemetry and instrumentation.
Another option is to spin up an in-memory implementation of the server-side of the export, using some generated proto bindings. That implementation can then be queried programmatically to make assertions....
needs the formatter run on it...