Add guid correlation support and change activity processing#169
Conversation
AndreyTretyak
requested review from
K-Cully,
armhil,
aszczepanski,
dakanev-msft,
davidahs,
doguva-msft,
muiriswoulfe,
neilr81 and
vlad-ion
as code owners
…eys.cs Co-Authored-By: Vlad Ion <vlad.ion@gmail.com>
…ltStrings.cs Co-Authored-By: Vlad Ion <vlad.ion@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Vlad Ion <vlad.ion@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Vlad Ion <vlad.ion@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Vlad Ion <vlad.ion@gmail.com>
…ests.cs Co-Authored-By: Vlad Ion <vlad.ion@gmail.com>
| /// <remarks>This property would be transfered to child activity and via web requests</remarks> | ||
| [Obsolete(TransactionIdObsoleteMessage, false)] | ||
| public static Activity SetObsoleteTransactionId(this Activity activity, uint transactionId) => | ||
| activity.AddBaggage(ObsoleteTransactionId, transactionId.ToString()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ToString [](start = 60, length = 8)
Add CultureInfo.InvariantCulture as a parameter to avoid differences in behaviour on different machines #Closed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed. Out of curiosity does it actually does anything for int? I'm not aware of different formats for it. #Closed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are differing number systems around the world, which this could potentially get converted into. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system#/media/File:Numeral_Systems_of_the_World.svg
In reply to: 394708563 [](ancestors = 394708563)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I was hoping we have a single standard at least in numbers :) thanks
The parameters here are replicated throughout and then passed directly down the hierarchy of methods as far as I can tell, which is typically considered a code smell. It would be preferable to create a property bag class and pass this around, to avoid all of the replication #Closed Refers to: src/Extensions/Logging/Internal/EventSource/OmexLogEventSource.cs:15 in 1f380b6. [](commit_id = 1f380b6, deletion_comment = False) |
| serviceCollection.AddHostedService<ActivityObserversIntializer>(); | ||
| serviceCollection.TryAddEnumerable(ServiceDescriptor.Transient<IActivityStopObserver, ActivityStopObserver>()); | ||
|
|
||
| serviceCollection.TryAddTransient<IActivityProvider, SimpleActivityProvider>(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason for the line break? In my mind, it's indicating some difference but I'm not seeing one here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added it to split enumerable registration (hosted is also a special case of enumerable) from Transient, but I don't have a strong opinion and okay removing it if you insisting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be good to add a comment clarifying this for future readers
In reply to: 394724148 [](ancestors = 394724148)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No sure that it worth a comment, it's like splitting different blocks in method, if blank line creates confusion we can just remove it
3 participants
Activtyprocessing into extensible activity observres