Skip to content

Conversation

iblancasa
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Link to tracking issue

Fixes #43216

Testing

Tested with:

receivers:
  otlp:
    protocols:
      grpc:
        endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4317
      http:
        endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4318

exporters:
  debug:
  coralogix:
    protocol: http
    application_name: otel
    application_name_attributes:
      - service.name
      - k8s.namespace.name
      - service.namespace
    domain: eu2.coralogix.com
    subsystem_name: k8s-saas
    subsystem_name_attributes:
      - subsystem.name
    private_key: ${env:CORALOGIX_PRIVATE_KEY}

service:
  pipelines:
    traces:
      receivers: [otlp]
      exporters: [coralogix, debug]
    metrics:
      receivers: [otlp]
      exporters: [coralogix, debug]
    logs:
      receivers: [otlp]
      exporters: [coralogix, debug]

And

receivers:
  otlp:
    protocols:
      grpc:
        endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4317
      http:
        endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4318

exporters:
  debug:
  coralogix:
    application_name: otel
    application_name_attributes:
      - service.name
      - k8s.namespace.name
      - service.namespace
    domain: eu2.coralogix.com
    subsystem_name: k8s-saas
    subsystem_name_attributes:
      - subsystem.name
    private_key: ${env:CORALOGIX_PRIVATE_KEY}

service:
  pipelines:
    traces:
      receivers: [otlp]
      exporters: [coralogix, debug]
    metrics:
      receivers: [otlp]
      exporters: [coralogix, debug]
    logs:
      receivers: [otlp]
      exporters: [coralogix, debug]

Also did some tests with proxy.

Documentation

  • Changes done in README.md.

@iblancasa iblancasa force-pushed the 43216 branch 2 times, most recently from 8917d5b to b1a405e Compare October 8, 2025 10:58
@iblancasa iblancasa marked this pull request as ready for review October 8, 2025 11:11
@iblancasa iblancasa requested a review from a team as a code owner October 8, 2025 11:11
@iblancasa iblancasa requested a review from mwear October 8, 2025 11:11
Copy link
Member

@douglascamata douglascamata left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One more comment regarding the default value for the protocol configuration and config validation.

Comment on lines +37 to +38
# (Optional) Protocol to use for communication: "grpc" (default) or "http"
protocol: "grpc"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You mention here that this is optional and there isn't a single test there protocol is not provided. I believe this will now fail the validation code here:

if c.Protocol != grpcProtocol && c.Protocol != httpProtocol {
		return fmt.Errorf("protocol must be %s or %s", grpcProtocol, httpProtocol)
}

Somewhere in the code (I guess inside the config validation function) we will need something like:

if c.Protocol == "" {
    c.Protocol = grpcProtocol
}

Can you add a test where the config has no explicit protocol to confirm it behaves like the README states?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Allow using http proxy

4 participants