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

chore: prepare release API 1.9.0/Core 1.25.0/Experimental 0.52.0 #4677

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pichlermarc
Copy link
Member

@pichlermarc pichlermarc commented May 3, 2024

API 1.9.0

🚀 (Enhancement)

  • feat(api): allow adding span links after span creation #4536 @seemk
    • This change is non-breaking for end-users, but breaking for Trace SDK implementations in accordance with the specification as new features need to be implemented.
  • feat: support node 22 #4666 @dyladan

Core 1.25.0

🚀 (Enhancement)

  • feat(instrumentation): generic config type in instrumentation base #4659 @blumamir
  • feat: support node 22 #4666 @dyladan
  • feat(sdk-trace-node): support xray Propagator via OTEL_PROPAGATORS environment variable #4602 @anuraags

🐛 (Bug Fix)

  • fix(core): align inconsistent behavior of getEnv() and getEnvWithoutDefaults() when a process polyfill is used #4648 @pichlermarc
    • getEnvWithoutDefaults() would use process.env if it was defined when running in a browser, while getEnv() would always use _globalThis. Now both use _globalThis when running in a browser.
  • fix(resources): prevent circular import (resource -> detector -> resource -> ...) #4653 @pichlermarc
    • fixes a circular import warning which would appear in rollup when bundling @opentelemetry/resources

Experimental 0.52.0

💥 Breaking Change

  • feat(exporter--otlp-)!: move serialization for Node.js exporters to @opentelemetry/otlp-transformer #4542 @pichlermarc
    • Breaking changes:
      • (user-facing) convert() now returns an empty object and will be removed in a follow-up
      • (internal) OTLPExporterNodeBase now has additional constructor parameters that are required
      • (internal) OTLPExporterNodeBase now has an additional ResponseType type parameter
  • feat(exporter--otlp-)!: move serialization for Node.js exporters to @opentelemetry/otlp-transformer #4581 @pichlermarc
    • Breaking changes:
      • (user-facing) convert() has been removed from all exporters
      • (internal) OTLPExporterBrowserBase: RequestType has been replaced by a ResponseType type-argument
      • (internal) OTLPExporterNodeBase: ServiceRequest has been replaced by a ServiceResponse type-argument
      • (internal) the @opentelemetry/otlp-exporter-proto-base package has been removed, and will from now on be deprecated in npm

🚀 (Enhancement)

  • feat(instrumentation): add util to execute span customization hook in base class #4663 @blumamir
  • feat(instrumentation): generic config type in instrumentation base #4659 @blumamir
  • feat: support node 22 #4666 @dyladan
  • feat(propagator-aws-xray-lambda): add AWS Xray Lambda propagator 4554

1.25.0

🚀 (Enhancement)

  • feat: support node 22 #4666 @dyladan
  • feat(sdk-trace-node): support xray Propagator via OTEL_PROPAGATORS environment variable #4602 @anuraags

🐛 (Bug Fix)

  • fix(core): align inconsistent behavior of getEnv() and getEnvWithoutDefaults() when a process polyfill is used #4648 @pichlermarc
    • getEnvWithoutDefaults() would use process.env if it was defined when running in a browser, while getEnv() would always use _globalThis. Now both use _globalThis when running in a browser.
  • fix(resources): prevent circular import (resource -> detector -> resource -> ...) #4653 @pichlermarc
    • fixes a circular import warning which would appear in rollup when bundling @opentelemetry/resources
  • fix(exporter-metrics-otlp-grpc): add explicit otlp-exporter-base dependency to exporter-metrics-otlp-grpc #4678 @AkselAllas

@pichlermarc pichlermarc marked this pull request as ready for review May 3, 2024 16:48
@pichlermarc pichlermarc requested a review from a team as a code owner May 3, 2024 16:48
@pichlermarc pichlermarc changed the title chore: prepare release 1.25.0/0.52.0 chore: prepare release API 1.10.0/Core 1.25.0/Experimental 0.52.0 May 6, 2024
@dyladan
Copy link
Member

dyladan commented May 7, 2024

I reached out to Datadog about this through @Qard. As the PR currently stands it would break dd-trace which I would like to avoid. I think we should delay this for a short time in order to allow them to respond, but I don't want to delay it forever.

@Qard
Copy link

Qard commented May 7, 2024

I've forwarded it to the relevant person internally so hopefully we'll come up with some solution soon...

@hamin
Copy link

hamin commented May 10, 2024

Any chance of #4536 enhancement having a published release soon? I realize there's a breaking change with a dd lib but was hoping to have the enhancement in a release sooner than that's resolved?

Appreciate everyone's efforts here.

@hamin
Copy link

hamin commented May 14, 2024

Any chance of #4536 enhancement having a published release soon? I realize there's a breaking change with a dd lib but was hoping to have the enhancement in a release sooner than that's resolved?

Appreciate everyone's efforts here.

@Qard @dyladan Any chance the dd-trace blockers don't hold back API 1.9.0 enhancements? Is it possible to have a release for API without waiting on dd-trace resolution? Thank you in advance!

@dyladan
Copy link
Member

dyladan commented May 14, 2024

It's possible but it's not ideal. If we release in the current state we will definitely break dd-trace and it reflects poorly on the project. We're doing our best to work with them. Sorry it's delaying the release but please be patient and we'll have a release soon.

@dyladan dyladan changed the title chore: prepare release API 1.10.0/Core 1.25.0/Experimental 0.52.0 chore: prepare release API 1.9.0/Core 1.25.0/Experimental 0.52.0 May 15, 2024
@dyladan
Copy link
Member

dyladan commented May 15, 2024

We're going to move forward with this change next week. It looks to me like dd-trace hasn't done anything yet to address the issue, but we have been very clear for months. @pichlermarc please update this PR and we can get it merged when I get back.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants