✅ Deploy Preview for opentelemetry-cpp-api-docs canceled.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.88%. Comparing base (87c216f) to head (08dd7c5).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3432   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.88%   89.88%           
=======================================
  Files         212      212           
  Lines        6941     6941           
=======================================
  Hits         6238     6238           
  Misses        703      703           

Is there any known issue on these we only have a few dependencies?

Is there any known issue on these we only have a few dependencies?

The dependencies that may be included as submodules or src and built in-tree (add_subdirectory) won't populate the CMake <package>_VERSION variable (which is populated when the dependency is found with find_package). Those include nlohmann-json, opentracing-cpp, and prometheus-cpp. In at least one case (vcpkg package used by ci of prometheus-cpp) the find_package call doesn't populate the <package>_VERSION variable.

Since there are testing gaps in ci for all the options to include a third party dependency supported by otel-cpp cmake, it is better to remove this version check warning for now and reevaluate a check like this once tests can be added.

Is there any known issue on these we only have a few dependencies?

The dependencies that may be included as submodules or src and built in-tree (add_subdirectory) won't populate the CMake <package>_VERSION variable (which is populated when the dependency is found with find_package). Those include nlohmann-json, opentracing-cpp, and prometheus-cpp. In at least one case (vcpkg package used by ci of prometheus-cpp) the find_package call doesn't populate the <package>_VERSION variable.

Since there are testing gaps in ci for all the options to include a third party dependency supported by otel-cpp cmake, it is better to remove this version check warning for now and reevaluate a check like this once tests can be added.

Thanks for sharing the details. Could we file an issue to track the revisiting of the issue?