Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
feat(tracing): Add additional Dynamic Sampling Context items to baggage and envelope headers - #5292
Conversation
…ge and envelope headers
size-limit report 📦
|
lforst
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking good! One minor thing and one I'm not entirely sure on.
| ): EventEnvelopeHeaders { | ||
| const baggage = event.contexts && (event.contexts.baggage as BaggageObj); | ||
| const { environment, release, transaction, userid, usersegment } = baggage || {}; | ||
| const baggage = event.sdkProcessingMetadata && event.sdkProcessingMetadata.baggage; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, having this in the sdkProcessingMetadata makes so much more sense.
| const { publicKey } = (client && client.getDsn()) || {}; | ||
| const metadata = this.transaction && this.transaction.metadata; | ||
| const sampelRate = metadata && metadata.transactionSampling && metadata.transactionSampling.rate; |
| // Since we're storing dynamic sampling context data in the event.sdkProcessingMetadata | ||
| // field We have to re-apply it after we applied the Scope's field. | ||
| // (This is because we're storing this data on the span and not on the scope) | ||
| const baggage = event.sdkProcessingMetadata && event.sdkProcessingMetadata.baggage; | ||
| event.sdkProcessingMetadata = this._sdkProcessingMetadata || {}; | ||
| event.sdkProcessingMetadata.baggage = baggage; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering. This already seemed kinda sketchy before you changed it. Did this line just overwrite/wipe the entire metadata from before? Would it be an option here to just merge them instead (like we do with the breadcrumbs and basically everything else (extra, tags, user, ...) above)?
Like this for example:
event.sdkProcessingMetadata={ ...event.sdkProcessingMetadata, ...this._sdkProcessingMetadata};// We probably want this orderingWdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did this line just overwrite/wipe the entire metadata from before?
Yes, everything that was on event.sdkProcessingMetadata.
I had the same feeling when writing this hack. Decided to go with it anyway because I thought that there was a reason for why we do this.
However, I just tried your suggestion and our tests still seem to pass, with it in, so I'll take it. Thanks :D
| 'sentry-environment=prod,sentry-release=1.0,sentry-transaction=GET%20%2Ftest%2Fexpress,sentry-samplerate=1,' + | ||
| 'sentry-publickey=public,sentry-traceid=', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't really matter here and it's very subjective but I personally avoid breaking up strings this way, simply because it's less "searchable". No action required though - just wanted to get this thought out ^^
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup but I also don't like super long strings that heavily exceed the characters-per-line limit. Very annoying when working with split editor windows 😅
| */ | ||
| private _getBaggageWithSentryValues(baggage: Baggage = createBaggage({})): Baggage { | ||
| private _populateBaggageWithSentryValues(baggage: Baggage = createBaggage({})): Baggage { | ||
| // Because of a cicular dependency, we cannot import the Transaction class here, hence the type casts |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed: Root cause of the circular dependency is, that we have some of the Dynamic Sampling Context functionality on the Span class, while it should probably all live on the Transaction class.
We will clean this up in a follow-up PR so no required action on this for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Almost done with it already. Will make a PR soon
Simplify applyToEvent logic
This PR adds several additional Dynamic Sampling Context items to be collected, populated and propagated via baggage or sent via envelope headers. The propagated/sent data now conforms with the specs proposed in getsentry/develop#613.
With this PR, the following fields were added to DSC:
Note that trace id and public key were already previously sent with envelope headers but the SDK would send its own values instead of the trace's values in case it is not the head-of-trace SDK. This PR also fixes that, in the sense that all
traceenvelope header data items are directly taken from the DSC we either received from an incoming baggage header or from the one we populate instead.In addition to these fields, this PR makes the following changes:
event.sdkProcessingMetadata(was previously stored inevent.contexts.baggagewhich was wrong, caused a bug and caused the baggage to even be sent to Sentry (which we do not want in this form)._getBaggageDataWithSentryValuesto_populateBaggageDataWithSentryValuesbecause it better describes the purpose of the functionThere are still more open tasks to address to improve DSC propagation (e.g. new handling of 3rd party baggage, adjusting naming to DSC rather than baggage) but this will be done in a follow-up PR.
Fixes#5290