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

Fix exponential histogram aggregation #3977

Closed
ocelotl opened this issue Jun 17, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3978
Closed

Fix exponential histogram aggregation #3977

ocelotl opened this issue Jun 17, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3978
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@ocelotl
Copy link
Contributor

ocelotl commented Jun 17, 2024

Describe your environment

OS: (e.g, Ubuntu)
Python version: (e.g., Python 3.8.10)
SDK version: (e.g., 1.25.0)
API version: (e.g., 1.25.0)

What happened?

The aggregation of the exponential histogram with CUMULATIVE collection aggregation temporality is wrong.

Steps to Reproduce

Run this

Expected Result

Same start time for all points with CUMULATIVE collection aggregation temporality.

Actual Result

Different start time for all points with CUMULATIVE collection aggregation temporality.

Additional context

No response

Would you like to implement a fix?

None

@ocelotl ocelotl added the bug Something isn't working label Jun 17, 2024
@ocelotl ocelotl self-assigned this Jun 17, 2024
@zhihali
Copy link
Contributor

zhihali commented Jun 18, 2024

I would like to ask if this issue is related to or could potentially solve issue #3974. Both seem to deal with the StartTimeUnixNano property in the context of ExponentialHistogram metrics.

@ocelotl
Copy link
Contributor Author

ocelotl commented Jun 18, 2024

It is very likely they are related, the exponential histogram aggregation needs a complete refactoring similar to #3429

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants