Skip to content

Conversation

@sabrenner
Copy link

This PR adds in Datadog LLM Observability documentation for instrumenting stacks using the Google ADK. Datadog has released auto-instrumentation support for this in the ddtrace python package within the past couple of months, and are looking to add our presence here as part of the suite of existing listed observability vendors.

Please let me know what extra work is needs to be done on this as applicable and I am happy to iterate and push up changes! Thanks to reviewers in advance!

@google-cla
Copy link

google-cla bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

@koverholt koverholt self-requested a review November 20, 2025 20:10
@koverholt
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @sabrenner, thanks for the PR and contribution. This functionality looks great, and the mention of ADK on the LLM observability page is really nice!

I'd like to write up a sample agent on this page to help users get started, and update the ddtrace-run command to actually run the agent and generate traces. I can help with that. However, when trying things out, I ran into the following error:

https://gist.github.com/koverholt/8e754e2c26e3c16635c051f524ab049d

What's the best way for us to troubleshoot that together? Should I open an issue in https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py?

@koverholt
Copy link
Collaborator

Actually it looks like this issue captures exactly what I ran into, which is preventing traces from being sent:

DataDog/dd-trace-py#15174

So we would want to get that resolved before publishing these docs.

@koverholt koverholt self-assigned this Nov 20, 2025
@sabrenner
Copy link
Author

@koverholt Thank you for flagging that issue, yes definitely agree we should get that issue resolved first. I'll get it fixed and released, and then follow up back here once it is! ETA is hopefully within the next couple of weeks (just due to release cycle timings, although taking a look at the issue hopefully the fix won't be too complicated) 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants