-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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(browser): Move navigation span descriptions into op #13527
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
477128e
ref(browser): Move navigation span descriptions into op
0Calories 610585c
adjust a test
0Calories 8ff8ac9
adjust another test
0Calories 7a10db7
update request and response spans and update tests
0Calories 0d418c2
update request and response spans
0Calories f5955cb
remove test results file
0Calories db010bd
update an e2e test i missed
0Calories cb21d0c
update sentry.op in tests
0Calories cf18b7b
add unreleased changelog entry
0Calories File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
m: assigning the URL here makes the span name become high-cardinality. Are we aware of this? Does it have impact on Relay/grouping/etc? These are unparameterized, raw URLs. I assume they not only contain path parameters but also potentially query and hash params. We generally tried to stay as far away as possible from this because historically, it always led to problems (e.g. dynamic sampling consistency, transaction name grouping)
The raw urls can also contain all kinds of tokens and ids.
I'm not 100% against changing this, I just want to make sure we're aware of the implications.
I guess an alternative would be to just describe a bit what this span is doing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Lukas, a very valid point but it's something we are aware of! There's currently no grouping in Relay for browser spans, so the cardinality will not be an issue. However, we already have the functionality available to scrub/parameterize URLs, which we use for resource and HTTP spans, for example. My next step is to update Relay to scrub these browser spans so they can be grouped safely.
Putting something different and low cardinality in the description would not be as useful, since we'd be losing a lot of details when looking at the span summary.