[crashtracker] RFC for structured log format #554
Merged
Conversation
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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #554 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 71.01% 71.03% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 287 287
Lines 42836 42836
==========================================
+ Hits 30421 30428 +7
+ Misses 12415 12408 -7
|
OmerRaviv
reviewed
Jul 30, 2024
| Boolean `false` if the crashreport is complete (i.e. contains all intended data), `true` if there is expected missing data. | ||
| This can happen becasue the crashtracker is architected to stream data to an out of process receiver, allowing a partial crash report to be emitted even in the case where the crashtracker itself crashed during stack trace collection. | ||
| This MUST be set to `true` if any required field is missing. | ||
| - `metadata`: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, should these (i.e. library_name, library_version, os_info etc) even be part of the structured json, given that they are already defined in the instrumentation-telemetry API which we are using to upload the crash reports when the tracer is at fault? (see the application and host sections of the required top level json keys in the instrumentation-telemetry api spec).
Perhaps we should only include them inline in the actual json payload when we are sending the information to the customer org (when the customer app is at fault) and not to instrumentation-telemetry?
OmerRaviv
reviewed
Jul 30, 2024
OmerRaviv
reviewed
Jul 30, 2024
kevingosse
reviewed
Jul 31, 2024
bwoebi
reviewed
Jul 31, 2024
bwoebi
reviewed
Jul 31, 2024
pawelchcki
reviewed
Aug 1, 2024
pawelchcki
reviewed
Aug 1, 2024
pawelchcki
reviewed
Aug 1, 2024
milanboers
reviewed
Aug 2, 2024
| This RFC establishes a standardized logging format for reporting this information. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Why structured json | ||
| As a text-based format, json can be written to standard logging endpoints. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this crashtracker be included with our SDKs (/tracer libs)? Which source (ddsource param) would be used to ingest these logs?
We may want to have Logs teams take a look at this, to make sure attributes are put in the right place (for functionalities aside from Error Tracking, like getting the status, host tags, message ... to show up well)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good idea. Who on the logs team would be the best person to do that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you can try in #logs-core :)
BenchmarksComparisonBenchmark execution time: 2024-11-13 20:08:31 Comparing candidate commit 12aa4e1 in PR branch Found 4 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 47 metrics, 2 unstable metrics. scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798
scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798
CandidateCandidate benchmark detailsGroup 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Group 8
Group 9
Group 10
Group 11
Group 12
BaselineOmitted due to size. |
peterg17
reviewed
Aug 7, 2024
milanboers
reviewed
Aug 8, 2024
milanboers
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2024
bwoebi
reviewed
Sep 2, 2024
| - `frames`: | ||
| An array of `StackFrame`, described below | ||
|
|
||
| #### StackFrame |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to request some data about the actual functions. Especially in C code there's information to be had "this variable was a null pointer - this looks like freed memory - probably valid address".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean like the actual values of local variables on the stack?
bwoebi
reviewed
Sep 2, 2024
gleocadie
reviewed
Sep 5, 2024
tlhunter
reviewed
Sep 27, 2024
nsavoire
reviewed
Oct 3, 2024
|
As we start to look into symbolication, I realize that adding all the module information at each stackframe is really inefficient and makes the crash report much bigger than it should. Shall we move the modules to a separate section, and only put the module base address in the stackframe? |
nsavoire
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
nsavoire
reviewed
Oct 9, 2024
nsavoire
reviewed
Oct 10, 2024
nsavoire
reviewed
Oct 11, 2024
This was referenced Nov 11, 2024
sanchda
reviewed
Nov 12, 2024
sanchda
reviewed
Nov 12, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What does this PR do?
Defines a structured log format for crash reports
Motivation
If we want to interoperate with other tools/services, we need an agreed on format.
Additional Notes
Anything else we should know when reviewing?
How to test the change?
Describe here in detail how the change can be validated.