Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ref(rust): Remove Python processors in favor of Rust ones #5327

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Jan 8, 2024

Conversation

phacops
Copy link
Contributor

@phacops phacops commented Jan 8, 2024

No description provided.

@phacops phacops requested a review from a team as a code owner January 8, 2024 13:20
@@ -100,7 +100,6 @@ struct Function<'a> {
http_method: Option<&'a str>,
is_application: u8,
materialization_version: u8,
module: &'a str,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

how come the rust processor is changing too?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This field is unused and was picked up by the Rust processor when the Python processor wasn't ingesting it.

@phacops phacops requested a review from lynnagara January 8, 2024 19:42
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 8, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d4d5b8c) 93.10% compared to head (82c5600) 90.63%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
snuba/writer.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
tests/datasets/test_spans_payloads.py 83.33% 1 Missing ⚠️
tests/datasets/test_spans_processor.py 91.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5327      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.10%   90.63%   -2.48%     
==========================================
  Files         839      880      +41     
  Lines       41357    42759    +1402     
  Branches        0      288     +288     
==========================================
+ Hits        38506    38755     +249     
- Misses       2851     3962    +1111     
- Partials        0       42      +42     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

getsentry-bot and others added 2 commits January 8, 2024 21:30
Co-Authored-By: phacops <336345+phacops@users.noreply.github.com>
Comment on lines -219 to -232
if let Some(http_method) = from.sentry_tags.http_method {
tag_keys.push("http.method".into());
tag_values.push(http_method);
}

if let Some(status_code) = from.sentry_tags.status_code {
tag_keys.push("status_code".into());
tag_values.push(status_code);
}

if let Some(transaction_method) = from.sentry_tags.transaction_method {
tag_keys.push("transaction.method".into());
tag_values.push(transaction_method);
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are not meant to be in tags, just sentry_tags, the Python processor had incorrect behavior.

@@ -270,6 +261,7 @@ impl TryFrom<FromSpanMessage> for Span {
trace_id: from.trace_id,
transaction_id: from.event_id,
transaction_op,
user: from.sentry_tags.user.unwrap_or_default(),
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Setting a user column value was somehow forgotten despite the column being there.

@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ storages:
from_column_table: null
from_column_name: sentry_tags
to_nested_col_table: null
to_nested_col_name: tags
to_nested_col_name: sentry_tags
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We were fetching from tags instead of sentry_tags for the sentry_tags field.

@phacops phacops merged commit 98b9810 into master Jan 8, 2024
28 of 32 checks passed
@phacops phacops deleted the pierre/cleanup-python-processors branch January 8, 2024 23:45
@getsentry-bot
Copy link
Contributor

PR reverted: dd479de

getsentry-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2024
)"

This reverts commit 98b9810.

Co-authored-by: phacops <336345+phacops@users.noreply.github.com>
@phacops phacops restored the pierre/cleanup-python-processors branch January 9, 2024 19:09
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.

5 participants