Skip to content

fix: remove unnecessary thread spawning #2960

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

Conversation

therustmonk
Copy link

Changes

Removed an unnecessary thread that was spawned just to create an instance of the blocking client.
Also made similar changes to the other implementations.

Merge requirement checklist

  • CONTRIBUTING guidelines followed
  • Unit tests added/updated (if applicable)
  • Appropriate CHANGELOG.md files updated for non-trivial, user-facing changes
  • Changes in public API reviewed (if applicable)

@therustmonk therustmonk requested a review from a team as a code owner May 6, 2025 16:42
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented May 6, 2025

CLA Signed


The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 6, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.3%. Comparing base (1d9bd25) to head (f6d2a93).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
opentelemetry-otlp/src/exporter/http/mod.rs 0.0% 12 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #2960   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   81.3%   81.3%           
=====================================
  Files        126     126           
  Lines      24289   24282    -7     
=====================================
  Hits       19763   19763           
+ Misses      4526    4519    -7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@cijothomas
Copy link
Member

#2431 See the original PR which spun up new thread, just to create the blocking::client. It is done to address an issue - so it should not be removed unless the original issue is solved via some other means..

@therustmonk
Copy link
Author

@cijothomas Thanks!

@therustmonk therustmonk closed this May 6, 2025
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants