-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
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
[receiver/windowseventlog] Add suppress_rendering_info parameter and simplify internal logic. #34720
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[receiver/windowseventlog] Add suppress_rendering_info parameter and simplify internal logic. #34720
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.
Looks to be going in the right direction.
6c24134
to
c22a815
Compare
i.Logger().Error("Failed to create entry", zap.Error(err)) | ||
return | ||
if i.remote.Server != "" { | ||
e.Attributes["remote_server"] = i.remote.Server |
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 think the server.address
attribute may be appropriate here. Any opinions on this?
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.
It seems reasonable to me.
1372b67
to
1560b54
Compare
edc9933
to
28b81d0
Compare
@djaglowski ping me when you think this one is ready (or if you want another pass while still a draft) |
Thanks @pjanotti, I'm still just trying to get it to pass CI. There have been a bunch of unrelated tests failing but now it's just https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/actions/runs/10706954934/job/29685874116?pr=34720#step:6:556, which may or may not be related. I don't know if you have any insight on that one but if you do it would be very helpful. |
@djaglowski there is something really going on with these tests, when I submitted the PR with the overall changes to the tests I wasn't getting any failure on my machine, but, now it seems almost constant. Nothing conclusive yet but will be looking more deeply into it. |
I noticed on #34720 and #35026 that execution of the test continued beyond a failure of `require.EventuallyWithT`. Based on the description alone, I would expect that using `assert` within `require.EventuallyWithT` should cause execution to stop if the assertion fails, but it appears this may not be the case. However, this change apparently works as intended.
This is a step towards #34720 which should have no user facing impact. It consolidates the event model by removing the notion of a "raw" event. The behavior of `raw` flag should remain the same because we still use different functions to build the output from the unified event.
…simplify internal logic.
3092d54
to
a167f60
Compare
Description:
This PR contains several changes described in #34131. It does not go as far as breaking out a separate parsing component, but I think it is enough to satisfy the known use cases.
I will likely break out some smaller PRs, but currently this includes:
suppress_rendering_info
parameter, which acts orthogonally toraw
flag.EventXML
struct for all configurations. Remove a lot of related duplication.EventXML
so they can be more easily reused.RemoteServer
field fromEventXML
. Instead, setattributes["remote_server"]
if remote collection is used.EventXML.Computer
may satisfy the use case. If the attribute is needed, find a better name for it.Link to tracking Issue:
Resolves #34131