feat(tracing): Record lost spans in client reports#3244
Merged
Conversation
szokeasaurusrex
changed the base branch from
master
to
szokeasaurusrex/improve-transport-data-category-typing
July 3, 2024 16:07
szokeasaurusrex
changed the title
szokeasaurusrex
marked this pull request as draft
July 3, 2024 16:08
Member
Author
|
Marked as draft, still need to test this |
Member
|
We need to keep track of the amount of spans prior |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## szokeasaurusrex/use-capture_record_lost_event_calls-fixture #3244 +/- ##
===============================================================================================
+ Coverage 79.35% 79.38% +0.03%
===============================================================================================
Files 132 132
Lines 14227 14243 +16
Branches 2987 2991 +4
===============================================================================================
+ Hits 11290 11307 +17
+ Misses 2092 2091 -1
Partials 845 845
|
Member
Author
@cleptric, does this mean that we also need to report dropped spans in the For example, in the situation below, do we report any dropped spans to Sentry? 
And for clarity, in the following situation where the transaction gets dropped after 
|
Member
|
The first example reports two dropped spans, the second example reports six dropped spans and one dropped transaction. |
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasaurusrex/improve-transport-data-category-typing
branch
2 times, most recently
from
July 4, 2024 11:40
f098e6a to
854b46c
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
from
July 4, 2024 11:41
1cc0144 to
0ce0523
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
2 times, most recently
from
July 5, 2024 12:06
cc4291c to
3c62d91
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 5, 2024 12:07
szokeasaurusrex
commented
Jul 5, 2024
|
|
||
| client.transport.record_lost_event(reason, data_category="transaction") | ||
| # No spans are discarded here because they were never recorded in the first place | ||
| client.transport.record_lost_transaction(reason, span_count=0) |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just realized I still need to test this codepath
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
from
July 8, 2024 08:52
3c62d91 to
7a142ef
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasaurusrex/improve-transport-data-category-typing
branch
from
July 8, 2024 08:52
854b46c to
9b6a718
Compare
Base automatically changed from
szokeasaurusrex/improve-transport-data-category-typing
to
master
July 8, 2024 11:59
szokeasaurusrex
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
`capture_record_lost_event_calls` replaces the `capture_client_reports` fixture. The fixture records calls to `Transport.record_lost_event` by noting the arguments passed to each call. This change is being introduced in preparation for #3244, which changes `Transport.record_lost_event`'s signature and behavior.
szokeasaurusrex
marked this pull request as draft
July 8, 2024 14:16
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
from
July 8, 2024 15:02
7a142ef to
4c8dfff
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
Make the `report["discarded_events"]` assertion logic (in `test_data_category_limits_reporting`) not rely on the ordering of events or any sorting logic. Done in preparation of #3244, where the sorting logic cannot be relied on anymore, since the same number of spans will be discarded as transactions.
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
from
July 8, 2024 15:47
4c8dfff to
fb4822a
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2024
…calls` Replace custom `record_lost_event` call capturing logic in `test_sampling.py` with the `capture_record_lost_event_calls` Pytest fixture. This change will simplify implementation of #3244.
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
from
July 9, 2024 09:09
07d9da7 to
f33be4a
Compare
szokeasaurusrex
changed the base branch from
master
to
szokeasaurusrex/use-capture_record_lost_event_calls-fixture
July 9, 2024 09:09
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
2 times, most recently
from
July 9, 2024 10:34
b98f150 to
f8d866f
Compare
Base automatically changed from
szokeasaurusrex/use-capture_record_lost_event_calls-fixture
to
master
July 9, 2024 10:41
szokeasaurusrex
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 9, 2024 10:41
Also, update existing transport tests so they pass against the changes introduced in this commit. Resolves #3229
- Add test for `record_lost_event` method's new `quantity` parameter - Add test for `record_lost_event` when passed a transaction item
szokeasaurusrex
force-pushed
the
szokeasuaursrex/lost-spans
branch
from
July 9, 2024 10:43
f8d866f to
79e8970
Compare
arjennienhuis
pushed a commit
to arjennienhuis/sentry-python
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
`capture_record_lost_event_calls` replaces the `capture_client_reports` fixture. The fixture records calls to `Transport.record_lost_event` by noting the arguments passed to each call. This change is being introduced in preparation for getsentry#3244, which changes `Transport.record_lost_event`'s signature and behavior.
arjennienhuis
pushed a commit
to arjennienhuis/sentry-python
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
Make the `report["discarded_events"]` assertion logic (in `test_data_category_limits_reporting`) not rely on the ordering of events or any sorting logic. Done in preparation of getsentry#3244, where the sorting logic cannot be relied on anymore, since the same number of spans will be discarded as transactions.
arjennienhuis
pushed a commit
to arjennienhuis/sentry-python
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
…calls` Replace custom `record_lost_event` call capturing logic in `test_sampling.py` with the `capture_record_lost_event_calls` Pytest fixture. This change will simplify implementation of getsentry#3244.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves #3229
Resolves #3248
Note to reviewers: I have attempted to split the commits up into logical units, so you may wish to review the changes commit-by-commit.