Skip to content
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

We need to change jaeger api call #193

Open
davehorton opened this issue Jun 26, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

We need to change jaeger api call #193

davehorton opened this issue Jun 26, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@davehorton
Copy link
Contributor

davehorton commented Jun 26, 2023

Currently we are querying the internal json api of jaeger using GET /api/v3/traces/${traceId}.

The problem is that while this works for the jaeger-all-in-one component, it does not work for the decomposed architecture where we call jaeger-query to retrieve the data. And the decomposed architecture (e.g splitting functionality into jaeger-agent, jaeger-collector, and jaeger-query) is required in order to save spans in cassandra persistent storage rather than memory.

Furthermore, the docs indicate the api we should be calling is GET /api/traces/${traceId}.

This api does work but it returns data in a different format:

We need to change api-server to call /api/traces/${traceId} so that we can support both types of deployments (in-memory plus persistent storage). The change to api-server is simple but we will need to change the parsing / display logic in the webapp as well.

@davehorton
Copy link
Contributor Author

davehorton commented Jun 26, 2023

alternatively, we could implement the gRPC api , which appears to be the recommended way. Feel free to do either way (slight preference for gPRC).

@davehorton
Copy link
Contributor Author

actually, the /v3 variant is available in recent docker images - I had been testing with an older image. So I think we are good for now. I will leave this ticket open for when we have time to update to using the grpc api which I do think will be better since it is implied to be more stable, but this is not a high priority at the moment

@xquanluu
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks Dave for the initial investigation

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants