From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DA261FF16B for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:25:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A9C6134D58; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:26:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <683e17d4-85e5-489e-b735-75810709bef6@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 09:26:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , "nansen.su" References: <20250715035525.2012744-1-nansen.su@sianit.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] metrics add OpenTelemetry support X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 7/15/25 08:52, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 15.07.25 um 05:55 schrieb nansen.su: [snip]>> + >> +sub type { >> + return 'opentelemetry'; >> +} >> + >> +sub properties { >> + return { >> + 'otel-protocol' => { > > I'm fine with the plugin specific otel prefix, but @Dominik: these here might be > a good fit for the property separation? It's not many plugins and each of them has > not that many properties. Or do you know anything that would speak against this? > > Anyhow, nothing that needs to block this for real and nothing you @Nansen Su need > to worry about. > Yes, the property isolation should be working fine here, at least no blocker comes to mind. If we do that afterwards though, the property-names are still prefixed, so we'd have to reintroduce them without prefix + deprecate, etc. (or we just leave them prefixed) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel