📝 Add docstrings to fix/cache-token-attributes

[coderabbitai]

Docstrings generation was requested by @hayke102.

• fix: use SpanAttributes instead of GenAIAttributes for cache token attributes #3442 (comment)

The following files were modified:

• packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-anthropic/opentelemetry/instrumentation/anthropic/__init__.py
• packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-langchain/opentelemetry/instrumentation/langchain/span_utils.py

ℹ️ Note

CodeRabbit cannot perform edits on its own pull requests yet.

---

Important

Add docstrings to functions in __init__.py and span_utils.py, and rename attributes for consistency.

• Docstrings:
  • Added docstring to _aset_token_usage() and _set_token_usage() in __init__.py to describe parameters and functionality.
  • Added docstring to set_chat_response_usage() in span_utils.py to explain token usage aggregation and recording.
• Attribute Renaming:
  • Renamed GenAIAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_READ_INPUT_TOKENS to SpanAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_READ_INPUT_TOKENS in __init__.py.
  • Renamed GenAIAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_CREATION_INPUT_TOKENS to SpanAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_CREATION_INPUT_TOKENS in __init__.py.
  • Renamed GenAIAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_READ_INPUT_TOKENS to SpanAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_READ_INPUT_TOKENS in span_utils.py.

^{This description was created by for 8ef912a. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

CodeRabbit bot authored PR detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 8ef912a in 2 minutes and 31 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 120 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-anthropic/opentelemetry/instrumentation/anthropic/__init__.py:185

• Draft comment:
  Comprehensive docstring added for _aset_token_usage. Consider including explicit type hints in the docstring (e.g. parameter types) for additional clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-anthropic/opentelemetry/instrumentation/anthropic/__init__.py:293

• Draft comment:
  Replacing GenAIAttributes with SpanAttributes for cache token metrics improves consistency. Verify that mixing GenAIAttributes (for input/output tokens) with SpanAttributes (for cache tokens) is intentional per your semantic conventions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-anthropic/opentelemetry/instrumentation/anthropic/__init__.py:302

• Draft comment:
  The docstring for _set_token_usage is well-written. For enhanced clarity, consider explicitly documenting the expected types for parameters and any return values.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

4. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-anthropic/opentelemetry/instrumentation/anthropic/__init__.py:902

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the file ends with a newline to conform with standard file formatting practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a missing newline at the end of the file. While it's true that many style guides recommend files end with a newline, this is typically caught by linters, formatters, or pre-commit hooks. The rules state "Do NOT comment on anything that would be obviously caught by the build" and to only keep comments with "STRONG EVIDENCE" that they are correct. A missing newline is a very minor formatting issue that would typically be caught by automated tools. The comment also uses the phrase "Ensure the file ends with a newline" which sounds like asking the author to verify/check something, which the rules say to avoid. This is not a logic issue or a code quality refactor - it's a trivial formatting concern. However, the diff does show that a newline was removed (the backslash notation), so the comment is technically correct about the file not ending with a newline. This could be considered a legitimate style issue that the author may have accidentally introduced. While the comment is technically correct, it falls into the category of trivial formatting issues that should be caught by automated tools like linters or formatters. The rules explicitly state not to comment on things that would be "obviously caught by the build" and to assume comments are incorrect unless there's strong evidence. A missing newline is exactly the type of thing that automated tools handle, and it's not a substantive code issue. This comment should be deleted. It's about a trivial formatting issue (missing newline at end of file) that would typically be caught by linters or formatters, and it doesn't represent a substantive code quality or logic issue.

5. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-langchain/opentelemetry/instrumentation/langchain/span_utils.py:284

• Draft comment:
  The newly added docstring for set_chat_response_usage is detailed and clear. Nice job documenting the aggregation and recording of token usage!
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

6. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-langchain/opentelemetry/instrumentation/langchain/span_utils.py:346

• Draft comment:
  Updating the attribute key to use SpanAttributes.GEN_AI_USAGE_CACHE_READ_INPUT_TOKENS improves consistency. Confirm that this change aligns with the overall semantic conventions used across the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_uQdGJHasMXjAatix

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}