feat: use OTel semconv constants for feature flag attributes

[abisecops]

This PR

• Replaces locally defined feature flag attribute constants in the telemetry package with references to OpenTelemetry semantic conventions (semconv).
• Reduces maintenance and ensures alignment with OTel updates.
• Removes redundant constant definitions.

Related Issues

Fixes #393

Notes

This change ensures the telemetry package uses standardized OTel feature flag attributes, making future updates easier and improving interoperability.

Follow-up Tasks

• Review other usages of feature flag attributes for possible refactoring.
• Monitor for updates in OTel semconv that may affect attribute usage.

How to test

• Run unit and integration tests to verify telemetry events are emitted with correct attribute keys.
• Check that no custom constants for feature flag attributes remain in the telemetry package.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @abisecops, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refactors the telemetry package to align with OpenTelemetry semantic conventions for feature flag attributes. By replacing locally defined constants with semconv references, the change aims to enhance standardization, reduce maintenance overhead, and improve interoperability with the broader OpenTelemetry ecosystem. This ensures that telemetry events are consistently structured and easily consumable by OTel-compliant systems.

Highlights

• Standardized Telemetry Attributes: Replaced custom feature flag attribute constants in the telemetry package with references to OpenTelemetry semantic conventions (semconv).
• Improved Maintainability: This change reduces the need for local maintenance of these constants and ensures automatic alignment with future OTel updates, removing redundant definitions.
• Dependency Updates: Updated go.mod and go.sum to include github.com/stretchr/testify v1.11.1 and other dependency adjustments.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request is a good move towards standardization by replacing local constants with OpenTelemetry semantic conventions. The core change in openfeature/telemetry/telemetry.go is well-executed and improves maintainability by aligning with an external standard.

A key area for improvement is in the testing. The corresponding test file, openfeature/telemetry/telemetry_test.go, has not been updated to reflect these changes. For instance, it still uses a hardcoded string "feature_flag.evaluation" instead of the new FlagEvaluationKey constant. While the tests may currently pass, updating them to use the exported constants is crucial for long-term robustness and maintainability. I strongly recommend including the test updates in this PR.

I've also left one minor stylistic comment regarding code formatting.

[aepfli]

Thank you

[erka]

Since all the attributes are already well-defined in the semantic conventions (semconv), the telemetry package doesn’t provide much value to go-sdk. I believe any remaining useful parts should be moved to go-sdk-contrib/hooks/open-telemetry, and the telemetry package should be removed from go-sdk.

[erka]

this package isn't included in go.mod

[erka]

this is not in used, right?

[aepfli]

Since all the attributes are already well-defined in the semantic conventions (semconv), the telemetry package doesn’t provide much value to go-sdk. I believe any remaining useful parts should be moved to go-sdk-contrib/hooks/open-telemetry, and the telemetry package should be removed from go-sdk.

I am not sure, if that should be the case, because it seems like we do this in all the SDK's for easy access to telemetric information. I think we should revisit this approach in general, because we add a dependency on the otel semconv to the base sdk, which might not be ideal anyways. - here open-feature/.github#65 - this was defined

[erka]

@abisecops Could you please double-check your work? It looks like the tests aren’t passing.

[beeme1mr]

@sahidvelji also has a draft PR open. We should align on this as soon as possible. I'd like to get the OTel support in a good place before KubeCon.

#418

[sahidvelji]

Thank you for considering contributing to the OpenFeature Go SDK!

As mentioned by @beeme1mr, there is already an existing PR (in draft). We will need to pick up the discussion again on the specifics around the future of the telemetry package and whether it should even be in this repo (or go-sdk-contrib). But until that has been finalized, I don't think we should make any changes to the telemetry package.