Skip to content

[editorial] Remove invalid URLs for Google Docs#5014

Merged
carlosalberto merged 6 commits intoopen-telemetry:mainfrom
vitorvasc:editorial_remove-invalid-links
Apr 14, 2026
Merged

[editorial] Remove invalid URLs for Google Docs#5014
carlosalberto merged 6 commits intoopen-telemetry:mainfrom
vitorvasc:editorial_remove-invalid-links

Conversation

@vitorvasc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Fixes #4812

Changes

Updates oteps/logs/0097-log-data-model.md and specification/logs/data-model.md by removing invalid Google Docs URLs, which were previously returning 401 and are now returning 404.

…metry#4916)

With declarative configuration stable (open-telemetry#4374), I propose adjusting the
spec contribution process to be "declarative config first".

**What this means:** If a spec PR is proposing changes to an SDK
component's configuration surface area, it should include a reference to
an PR against `opentelemetry-configuration` to propose corresponding
changes to the declarative config schema.

**Why this is important:**

- Ensures spec PRs are evaluated holistically. The declarative config
schema is on track to become a crucial cross-language user facing API
for the whole project. Operators can't or don't want to modify source
code to use the programmatic API, and env vars are insufficient for
non-trivial setups. By doing this, we add UX evaluation criteria in
addition to the existing conceptual criteria.
- Ensures declarative config schema stays in sync with the spec.
- Helps drive consistency across language implementations, since its
much harder to misinterpret / reinterpret a feature when there's a
config schema spec to adhere to.
- Further incentivizes the remaining languages to implement declarative
config, helping the project achieve its mission of [telemetry concepts
being universal across
languages](https://opentelemetry.io/community/mission/#telemetry-should-be-universal).

cc @open-telemetry/configuration-approvers

Signed-off-by: Vitor Vasconcellos <vvasconcellos1@gmail.com>
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 8, 2026 11:33
@vitorvasc vitorvasc requested review from a team as code owners April 8, 2026 11:33
Signed-off-by: Vitor Vasconcellos <vvasconcellos1@gmail.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR addresses link-check failures caused by non-public Google Docs links in the Logs data model documentation by removing those invalid URLs from the spec and the related OTEP.

Changes:

  • Removed invalid Google Docs reference links from specification/logs/data-model.md.
  • Removed invalid Google Docs links (and the now-empty References section) from oteps/logs/0097-log-data-model.md.
  • Reformatted the Table of Contents in specification/logs/data-model.md.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
specification/logs/data-model.md Removes broken Google Docs links from References and updates the page TOC formatting.
oteps/logs/0097-log-data-model.md Removes broken Google Docs links (and associated References section) and reflows the Alternate Design text.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

specification/logs/data-model.md:23

  • The TOC format here differs from the rest of the spec docs: it now includes the page title (Logs Data Model) and uses only - bullets, whereas other spec pages typically omit the first H1 and use the default markdown-toc bullet scheme. If TOCs are regenerated automatically, this is likely to cause unnecessary churn or mismatch. Consider regenerating with the same options used elsewhere (e.g., markdown-toc --no-first-h1 -i) so the TOC starts at ## Design Notes and matches the established bullet style.
- [Design Notes](#design-notes)
  * [Requirements](#requirements)
  * [Events](#events)
  * [Field Kinds](#field-kinds)
- [Log and Event Record Definition](#log-and-event-record-definition)
  * [Field: `Timestamp`](#field-timestamp)
  * [Field: `ObservedTimestamp`](#field-observedtimestamp)
  * [Trace Context Fields](#trace-context-fields)
    + [Field: `TraceId`](#field-traceid)

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread oteps/logs/0097-log-data-model.md Outdated
Signed-off-by: Vitor Vasconcellos <vvasconcellos1@gmail.com>
@dashpole dashpole added the Skip Changelog Label to skip the changelog check label Apr 8, 2026
Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@arminru arminru left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good reminder that next time we should probably retrieve a copy of the drafts and add them to the repo (or at least attach them in a Github comment on the PR) while the documents are still available.

vitorvasc added a commit to open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2026
@carlosalberto
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Maybe @tigrannajaryan remembers about that document (being the author of the Logs data model OTEP?). Otherwise not much we can do. Merging for now.

@carlosalberto carlosalberto added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 14, 2026
Merged via the queue into open-telemetry:main with commit d500678 Apr 14, 2026
9 checks passed
@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Maybe @tigrannajaryan remembers about that document (being the author of the Logs data model OTEP?). Otherwise not much we can do. Merging for now.

I think it was created using a corporate account I no longer have access to. I don't think there is a way to recover it.

tigrannajaryan added a commit to tigrannajaryan/opentelemetry-specification that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2026
The link was removed in open-telemetry#5014

I was able to locate a copy and created a new Google Doc with the same content.
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2026
The link was removed in
#5014

I was able to locate a copy and created a new Google Doc with the same
content.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Skip Changelog Label to skip the changelog check

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[editorial] Link check is failing because of not public document

8 participants