Add goals for a OpenTelemetry Desktop Viewer/Development Tool

text/0230-telemetry-viewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+# OTV: OpenTelemetry Viewer
+
+_A local explorer for OpenTelemetry data, components, and endpoints._
+
+## Motivation
+
+OpenTelemetry offers a rich, highly customizable, and highly configurable
+ecosystem of tooling, SDKs, APIs, and instrumentation libraries. However, with
+this complexity comes a cost -- the barrier to entry for new users can be very
+high, with significant cycle time required in order to understand how their
+instrumentation code changes affect the instrumentation emitted by their
+service. In addition, operators often find it challenging to understand
+OpenTelemetry configurations at the Collector or in an SDK. While OpAMP provides
+an API that can help with this, it doesn't provide a management plane or
+visualization components to see and modify configurations in the browser.
+
+To address these gaps, and others, I propose a new 'OpenTelemetry Viewer'
+component that can be built into a collector and provides in-memory storage,
+viewing, and modification of OpenTelemetry data and components.
+
+## Explanation
+
+Different users of a telemetry system have different needs and expectations for
+debugging instrumentation. Currently, developers have two options for
+quick feedback - using a debug exporter at the collector or SDK, or using an
+existing analysis tool (open source or proprietary). Both of these options have
+drawbacks - the debug exporter presents an overwhelming amount of text-based
+data, and depending the characteristics of a development environment, it may be
+challenging to stand up and use a local suite of open source analysis tools
+(such as Jaeger, Prometheus, and OpenSearch) or use a commercial tool. Existing
+options are optimized for viewing, querying, and analyzing data across hundreds
+or thousands of sources, not for understanding "what attributes are my metrics
+emitting?" or "what type of data are my instrumentation libraries emitting?".
+
+Reduced cycle time (both in a DevOps sense and also in a more general reading of
+the word) is a contributor to quality and resiliency of software and human
+systems. Being able to quickly get feedback about if your changes are having the
+desired effect or not is invaluable, especially for developers that are
+beginning to instrument their services for observability.
+
+As custom instrumentation and data transformation becomes a larger and larger
+part of the OpenTelemetry story, enabling these fast feedback loops is critical
+for the project. However, we must also balance this against other tools in the
+ecosystem. Thus, I proprose the following set of criteria that will guide the
+implementation of this OTEP:
+
+- To be consistent with our existing stance on vendor agnosticism, any component
+  developed cannot implement persistent storage. Storage must be local
+  (constrained to the machine where OTV is running or accesssed from), and can
+  only persist as part of a session (for example, between refreshes on a browser
+  page or collector restarts).
+- We will not implement a query language or semantics as part of this project.
+  Data can be filtered and projected, but without a bespoke or pre-built query
+  language.
+
+With that said, the requirements of OTV are as follows:
+
+- An in-memory data store constrained by size and time. For example, a ring
+  buffer. This store can persist to local disk for persistence through collector
+  reboots, but is specifically not designed for long-term storage of data.
+- A web UI that displays data in the store, with user-configurable options for
+  grouping, filtering, and sorting data. This UI also should be able to
+  visualize metrics appropriately (as a line, bar, or big number chart).
+- A web UI that displays a list of discovered OpAMP components, and allows for
+  the viewing and editing of their configurations.
+- A 'hot reload' function that allows for configuration changes to be applied to
+  the underlying collector, so operators can tune OTTL transformations and see
+  the changes immediately.
+
+## Internal details
+
+Broadly, the implementation of this viewer should be a collector extension that
+exposes a simple web portal for viewing data along with some sort of data store
+to hold the data emitted. This extension could be bundled with specific
+collector releases, or brought in via the collector builder.
+
+There should be a few options for distribution of the extension -
+
+1. A 'default' collector distribution from the project that includes a basic
+   collector configuration and the viewer extension.
+2. Using the collector builder to create a custom image that includes this
+   extension as well as other custom components.
+3. A standalone binary that can be installed on a local machine or in a
+   codespace or other development environment.
+
+These are not an exhaustive list of deployment options, and I posit that the
+community will create other strategies as well.
+
+## Trade-offs and mitigations
+
+There are two points I'd like to address in terms of trade-offs around this
+component.
+
+- _Jaeger, Prometheus, and other CNCF Observability Projects_
+
+Future work on Jaeger and Prometheus promises to bring these tools more into
+alignment with OpenTelemetry as a 'default choice' for data storage, query,
+visualization, and workflows. This is cause for celebration, to be sure.
+However, as noted above, these projects are fundamentally designed to scale out
+for production uses of thousands or millions of data points a minute, and
+potentially thousands of users. They are not designed for the individual
+developer or operator.
+
+This component specifically does not seek to replace either of these tools, and
+I believe this OTEP helps define the boundary of tooling that we plan to build
+and support going forward.
+
+- _Why not let the community figure it out for themselves?_
+
+Since this OTEP was originally written, there have been examples of
+community-built tools (such as OTelBin, which visualizes Collector
+configurations) and vertically integrated solutions like .NET Aspire which are
+built on top of OpenTelemetry concepts or components. It's entirely possible
+that if we do nothing, someone will come up with a solution that users coalesce
+around. However, I believe we have a responsibility to define the types of tools
+that are useful, and also to offer potential contributors a variety of projects
+to work on. OTV would be a great place for 'traditional' application developers
+and front-end developers to make contributions to OpenTelemetry, increasing our
+contributor base and contributor diversity.
+
+## Prior art and alternatives
+
+The biggest piece of prior art or alternative implementation here is the
+existence of open source observability and monitoring projects such as
+Prometheus, Grafana, etc. The counter-argument against this proposal is that by
+creating a secondary toolchain for developers, we would not be skilling them up
+in popular existing tools, and these existing tools satisfy the requirements of
+this proposal already.
+
+To this, I submit the following points:
+
+1. While Prometheus and Jaeger do provide powerful analysis tools and can both
+   be run fairly easily in a local environment, they are not necessarily built
+   for the purpose of this proposal as-is.
+2. There is no CNCF tooling available for Dashboard or Log Storage/Querying;
+   Currently, Grafana and OpenSearch seem to be the most popular and open
+   source-iest options here.
+3. There is a difference in effort requireed for a developer to add a local
+   observability stack vs. swapping out a collector binary, and it's a pretty
+   significant difference.
+
+In general, both commercial tools and extant open source observability tools are
+not designed for the specific use case of allowing a developer to quickly get
+feedback on their instrumentation code, or their observability configuration and
+pipeline.
+
+Another example of this pattern in the cloud-native ecosystem is the Kubernetes
+Dashboard. The dashboard is not a default part of a Kubernetes install, and it's
+often superseded in production deployments by managed solutions or other tools
+(for example, GKE provides a management UI, and command line tools like k9s
+exist). However, by providing this component, Kubernetes is able to provide a
+solution for developers and operators who need a simple GUI to diagnose and
+visualize their cluster, its pods, etc.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Are we able to use existing tools (such as
+  [otel-desktop-viewer](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/issues/1515))
+  as a starting point for this proposal?
+- Do we have maintainers and leaders that can step up to drive this?
+- What does success look like?
+- Are we signing up for a long-term maintenance problem by taking this on?
+
+## Future possibilities
+
+With appropriate design (i.e., good APIs and interfaces), this could be used by
+other local tooling such as VSCode or JetBrains to implement a language server
+or other integration endpoints. This could enable integrations between
+OpenTelemetry and IDEs themselves in a vendor-agnostic way.