feat(otelcol)!: Upgrade to OTel Collector v0.142.0#5128
Conversation
|
💻 Deploy preview available (Upgrade to OTel Collector v0.142.0): |
b9bd1b0 to
f2e2b8f
Compare
5553fbe to
31844d3
Compare
|
Make sure we reference Cyrille's new function in the transform processor for fixing span name - open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib#43145 - it should be called out in the OTel docs now, too. |
9eb1636 to
f4ffb42
Compare
09dd52b to
33725cd
Compare
🔍 Dependency ReviewBelow is a focused review of dependency upgrades that required (or will require) code changes, with references and concrete diffs to guide adoption. I’ve exhaustively checked the releases between your “as‑is” and “to‑be” versions for the major changes that impacted this codebase.
go.opentelemetry.io/collector v0.139.x → v0.142.x (and companion modules) — ❌ Changes NeededKey breaking changes applied in this PR:
Relevant upstream notes:
Applied code changes:
Examples from this PR:
Supporting internal helpers updated to/from configoptional:
Concrete diff samples already in this PR:
No further code changes required if you stay on v0.142.x. github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib v0.139.x → v0.142.x — ❌ Changes NeededPrimary breaking changes that affected this codebase:
Applied changes:
Evidence:
No further code changes required. github.com/grafana/beyla/v2 v2.7.10 → v2.8.5 — ❌ Changes NeededBreaking API changes addressed:
These changes are applied in:
References:
go.opentelemetry.io/ebpf-profiler (replace → grafana fork) v0.0.202550… → v0.0.202602… — ❌ Changes NeededThe profiler stack (tied to otel-profiling-go) introduced changes that required code updates in the Pyroscope eBPF reporter:
Applied diffs:
References:
go.opentelemetry.io/collector/confighttp (and related) — v1.45.x/0.139.x → v1.48.x/0.142.x — ❌ Changes NeededCovered above in the main collector section; singling out here because it touches common utilities:
All changes are already applied in this PR. Documentation updates (collector 0.139 → 0.142) —
|
|
@jharvey10 What would be a good title and a good "Brief description of Pull Request" for this PR? It's mostly a chore but contains a few features and a couple of breaking changes. There's also a new Beyla parameter which I'm not yet sure if I should document. I'll ask the Beyla team in a comment here. |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| sending_queue { } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sending_queue is disabled by default in Alloy for otelcol.exporter.loadbalancing. It used to be disabled upstream too, but now it's enabled by default upstream. IDK if it's intentional or if it's an oversight, but I'll keep it disabled in Alloy for backwards compatibility.
| expectedConfig.Instrumentations = args.Instrumentations | ||
| expectedConfig.AllowServiceGraphSelfReferences = true | ||
| expectedConfig.ExtraResourceLabels = args.ExtraResourceLabels | ||
| expectedConfig.ExtraSpanResourceLabels = []string{"k8s.cluster.name", "k8s.namespace.name", "service.version", "deployment.environment"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@grafana/beyla Do you know why this line changed? It's not very clear to me.
grcevski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! for the beyla changes.
| @@ -1,256 +0,0 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO we have a page for this (just the header + this component was removed in 1.13) for at least one release. Thoughts @clayton-cornell ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could. I don't think this been done in the past - but that doesn't mean we can't do it now.
I can't remember if we've ever completely removed a component...
What we have as a guideline is this: https://grafana.com/docs/writers-toolkit/write/deprecate-remove/#removal which tells me we should add the warning to the top of the page and leave the contents as-is (without deleting) for at least one release cycle. In whatever future release we delete the content, we can add redirect to the main components page so people don't get a 404.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also empty the page as Sam suggested and just have the warning plus point the readers to where they should look instead.
dehaansa
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM minus the two nits above.
@ptodev Since these otel PRs are quite large, the typical rules we follow for changelog entries probably don't apply directly. There's a few routes you could take. I think my recommendation would be to have multiple changelog entries, along with a breaking changes section, if needed. I'm assuming the description from above includes one breaking change and one deprecation. Breaking change?
Deprecation? Example commit title (message) and extended description: Title Extended description |
62ae4ef to
ad81e91
Compare
|
💻 Deploy preview deleted (feat(otelcol)!: Upgrade to OTel Collector v0.142.0). |
Co-authored-by: Clayton Cornell <131809008+clayton-cornell@users.noreply.github.com>
552f2cf to
a1445dc
Compare

Brief description of Pull Request
feat(beyla.ebpf): Upgrade Beyla to v2.8.5
feat(otelcol.receiver.kafka): Remove the global
topicattributeBREAKING-CHANGE: The global
topicattribute has been deleted; use thetopicsattributes inside thelogs,metrics, andtracesblocks instead.feat(otelcol.receiver.kafka): Deprecate the
topicattribute inside thelogs,metrics, andtracesblocks in favour of a newtopicsattribute.Notes to the Reviewer
I'm not including the change to
otelcol.receiver.awss3in the changelog, because that component isn't in the latest release.PR Checklist
BEGIN_COMMIT_OVERRIDE
feat(otelcol)!: Upgrade to OTel Collector v0.142.0
feat(beyla.ebpf): Upgrade Beyla to v2.8.5
feat(otelcol.receiver.kafka): Remove the global
topicattributeBREAKING-CHANGE: The global
topicattribute has been deleted; use thetopicsattributes inside thelogs,metrics, andtracesblocks instead.feat(otelcol.receiver.kafka): Deprecate the
topicattribute inside thelogs,metrics, andtracesblocks in favour of a newtopicsattribute.END_COMMIT_OVERRIDE