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

Add named "additional data" support #121

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nagisa
Copy link
Member

@nagisa nagisa commented Jul 18, 2020

This allows representing KV pairs of data in e.g. chrome profiles more
faithfully. Previously we would automatically generate arg0... as a key
for all such data.

Chromium Profiler showing proper key-value information for the selected span

This allows representing KV pairs of data in e.g. chrome profiles more
faithfully.
@nagisa nagisa force-pushed the nagisa/kv-additional-data branch from 356671f to 48c55c4 Compare July 18, 2020 22:56
@nagisa
Copy link
Member Author

nagisa commented Jul 18, 2020

Note: this doesn’t actually add the API to measureme to output such data. Ideas on what API would make most sense here would be appreciated.

Comment on lines +8 to +10
/// <argument> = ['\x1D' <argument_name>] '\x1E' <argument_value>
/// <argument_name> = <text>
/// <argument_value> = <text>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if it would be simpler to make the grammar:

<argument> = '\x1E' (<argument_name_value_pair> | <argument_value>)
<argument_name_value_pair> = <text> '\x1D' <text>
<argument_value> = <text>

Then we could always parse the leading \x1E and then do a string split on the \x1D if it exists.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that would also make the format compatible with the current format. It's fine if we need to break that but we'll have to bump the format number and coordinate redeploying new versions on perf.rlo.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It sounds like there might be another breaking change in the works from another contributor so if you think it's simpler to use the current strategy rather than this suggestion, that's fine with me!

@wesleywiser wesleywiser self-assigned this Aug 12, 2020
@nagisa
Copy link
Member Author

nagisa commented Aug 12, 2020

I’m probably not going to pursue this further, but if anybody wants feel free to pick this up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants