-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
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
Feature Flag evaluation event #1440
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added a couple of comments; otherwise, it looks good.
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ groups: | |||
stability: experimental | |||
brief: The unique identifier of the feature flag. | |||
examples: ["logo-color"] | |||
- id: feature_flag.provider_name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest leaving this open. Using an "id" means it is "blocked" only to use IDs, and we can potentially use it for names or other semantically valid values.
I would allow you to use the following examples:
["provider-1", "guid_here", "provider-v1"]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure what you mean by "leaving this open"
First draft of
feature_flag.evaluation
event from the feature flag semantic conventions working group. Based on proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sBDD-uifx-Qy0NxtwRcrRAQ48sHQS9dTp6tpArQsoZg/editSummary of changes:
feature_flag.provider_name
withfeature_flag.provider.id
feature_flag
tofeature_flag.evaluation
feature_flag.evaluation
feature_flag.context.id
feature_flag.environment.id
feature_flag.flag_set.id
feature_flag.value
feature_flag.version