Update process.runtime example for the Python language

[Viicos]

Changes

The Python runtimes specification says:

process.runtime.version- Fill in the sys.implementation.version values separated by dots.

The PyPy example currently uses version 7.3.2 (4 years old). In this version, it seems that PyPy did not implement sys.implementation.version correctly:

Python 3.7.4 (87875bf2dfd8, Sep 24 2020, 07:26:36)
[PyPy 7.3.2-alpha0 with GCC 7.3.1 20180303 (Red Hat 7.3.1-5)] on linux
>>>> sys.implementation.version
(major=3, minor=7, micro=4, releaselevel='final', serial=0)

sys.implementation.version documentation:

version is a named tuple, in the same format as sys.version_info. It represents the version of the Python implementation. This has a distinct meaning from the specific version of the Python language to which the currently running interpreter conforms, which sys.version_info represents. For example, for PyPy 1.8 sys.implementation.version might be sys.version_info(1, 8, 0, 'final', 0), whereas sys.version_info would be sys.version_info(2, 7, 2, 'final', 0). For CPython they are the same value, since it is the reference implementation.

In the latest PyPy release (7.3.17), this was fixed:

Python 3.10.14 (39dc8d3c85a7, Aug 27 2024, 14:32:27)
[PyPy 7.3.17 with GCC 10.2.1 20210130 (Red Hat 10.2.1-11)] on linux
>>>> sys.implementation.version
sys.pypy_version_info(major=7, minor=3, micro=17, releaselevel='final', serial=0)

So the example was fixed accordingly. However, Is this expected? Should sys.version_info be used instead?

Merge requirement checklist

• CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines followed.
• Change log entry added, according to the guidelines in When to add a changelog entry.
  • If your PR does not need a change log, start the PR title with [chore]
• schema-next.yaml updated with changes to existing conventions.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: trask / name: Trask Stalnaker (88a7e5f, 1ac4458)
• ✅ login: Viicos / name: Victorien (a5c11c6, 8036c1a, d543029)

[mx-psi]

Thanks for the PR!

So the example was fixed accordingly. However, Is this expected? Should sys.version_info be used instead?

What would be the benefit of using sys.version_info?

[Viicos]

What would be the benefit of using sys.version_info?

There's no real benefit in using sys.version_info vs sys.implementation.version, it's just that they don't provide the same information. sys.version_info provides the Python implementation version, while sys.implementation.version provides the version of the current implementation.

I believe it's still best to keep sys.implementation.version, as coupled with process.runtime.name, we know exactly which PyPy version was used and getting the Python implementation version used by this PyPy version is just a matter of looking up online at https://downloads.python.org/pypy/. If we were to use sys.version_info, we would be missing the exact PyPy version (e.g. PyPy 7.3.16 and 7.3.17 both use Python 3.10.14).

Just wanted to double check that we still want to stick to sys.implementation.version

[mx-psi]

I believe it's still best to keep sys.implementation.version, as coupled with process.runtime.name, we know exactly which PyPy version was used and getting the Python implementation version used by this PyPy version is just a matter of looking up online at downloads.python.org/pypy. If we were to use sys.version_info, we would be missing the exact PyPy version (e.g. PyPy 7.3.16 and 7.3.17 both use Python 3.10.14).

Just wanted to double check that we still want to stick to sys.implementation.version

This makes sense to me. LGTM

[trask]

cc @open-telemetry/python-approvers