-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 726
fix(llama-index): use the correct instrumentation point #2807
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
fix(llama-index): use the correct instrumentation point #2807
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Giovanni Liva <[email protected]>
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 good to me! Reviewed everything up to 56144b6 in 1 minute and 3 seconds
More details
- Looked at
22
lines of code in1
files - Skipped
0
files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
4
drafted comments based on config settings.
1. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-llamaindex/opentelemetry/instrumentation/llamaindex/__init__.py:41
- Draft comment:
Ensure the dependency change to 'llama-index-core' aligns with SDK requirements. This update is critical as it triggers instrumentation only when the core package is present. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =20%
<= threshold50%
The comment is related to a dependency change, specifically mentioningllama-index-core
. It suggests ensuring alignment with SDK requirements, which is a general cautionary note. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or identify a specific issue with the change. It seems to be more of a reminder or caution, which violates the rule against making purely informative comments.
2. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-llamaindex/opentelemetry/instrumentation/llamaindex/__init__.py:58
- Draft comment:
Verify that checking version for 'llama-index-core' is intended. The updated condition ensures the dispatcher instrumentation is used only for core versions >= 0.10.20. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =30%
<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to verify their intention regarding a version check forllama-index-core
. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm their intention. However, it does provide specific information about the condition change, which could be useful if it were rephrased as a suggestion or observation rather than a request for verification.
3. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-llamaindex/opentelemetry/instrumentation/llamaindex/__init__.py:41
- Draft comment:
Updated the dependency from 'llama-index' to 'llama-index-core' so that instrumentation depends on the correct package. Ensure that this matches the installed package and its versioning. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%
<= threshold50%
This comment is related to a dependency change, which is not allowed according to the rules. The comment asks the author to ensure that the dependency matches the installed package and its versioning, which is not specific enough to be useful. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
4. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-llamaindex/opentelemetry/instrumentation/llamaindex/__init__.py:58
- Draft comment:
Switched the version check to use 'llama-index-core' so that it uses the correct package version for instrumentation. Verify that the version semantics on 'llama-index-core' align as expected. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%
<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to verify the version semantics, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code. Therefore, it should be removed.
Workflow ID: wflow_Yf0i2zWUkQ1IbdmI
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet
mode, and more.
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.
Thanks @thisthat! The only issue is that this package didn't exist in the past - so I wonder if we should make this change (which means we won't be backward compatible anymore)
Another possibility would be to create two Instruments: |
Sounds like a great plan actually! |
e074ef4
to
1371782
Compare
Hey @nirga 👋 I've implemented what we discussed :) the PR is ready for another round of review |
Fixes #2799
feat(instrumentation): ...
orfix(instrumentation): ...
.The instrumentation only attaches to
*.core
packages. Therefore, it should be the dependency used to decide if the instrumentation is triggered.