Added support for semantic convention 1_20 and 1_23 #1904
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
AravindKumar8520
changed the title
| - attribute: server.address | ||
| regex: ^search-[a-zA-Z0-9-]+-[a-zA-Z0-9]+\.((aos\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]+\.on\.aws)|(([a-zA-Z0-9-]+)\.(es|aos)\.amazonaws\.com))$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ElasticSearch follows database conventions, so this file requires rules for 1.20 and 1.23 conventions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added changes
| - attribute: rpc.service | ||
| anyOf: [ "Lambda" ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why rpc.service=Lambda? I do not see this in the conventions, so I do not expect that instrumentation will add the rpc.service attribute.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added changes
| - attribute: aws.region | ||
| present: true | ||
| - attribute: aws.account.id | ||
| present: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not see aws.region or aws.account.id in the specification. What instrumentation are you using that adds these attributes?
| @@ -1,13 +1,24 @@ | |||
| relationships: | |||
| - name: extServiceCallsInfraAwsSqsQueue | |||
| - name: extServiceCallsInfraAwsSqsQueue1_20 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This rule does not look like 1.20 conventions, so this name is not accurate. 1.20 conventions do not have an aws.region or aws.account.id attribute.
| attribute: messaging.destination.name | ||
|
|
||
| - name: extServiceCallsInfraAwsSqsQueue1_23 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is nothing in this rule that indicates it follow 1.23 conventions. All the attributes you are relying on are present in 1.20.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does this rule relate to the AWSLAMBDAALIAS rule in this other PR https://github.com/newrelic/entity-definitions/pull/1906/files#diff-328a5048f522a203ae3b2281d21e89d0adfa40bd94b88dd9c5deb31bc17701d7L1?
Is it expected that both an AWSLAMBDAFUNCTION and AWSLAMBDAALIAS relationship be created? If not, when would I expect one over the other?
|
We are closing this PR and will create two separate PRs: one for clean changes and one for the issue-related ones. |
Relevant information
Added support for semantic convention 1_20 and 1_23
Checklist
identifierwill be unique and valid.