feat: process tags for telemetry, crash tracking, remote config #7157
Conversation
Overall package sizeSelf size: 4.39 MB Dependency sizes| name | version | self size | total size | |------|---------|-----------|------------| | import-in-the-middle | 2.0.0 | 68.46 kB | 797.03 kB | | dc-polyfill | 0.1.10 | 26.73 kB | 26.73 kB |🤖 This report was automatically generated by heaviest-objects-in-the-universe |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #7157 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 84.48% 84.49%
=======================================
Files 523 523
Lines 22448 22457 +9
=======================================
+ Hits 18966 18975 +9
Misses 3482 3482 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
BenchmarksBenchmark execution time: 2025-12-22 22:32:22 Comparing candidate commit 065107c in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 292 metrics, 28 unstable metrics. |
tlhunter
changed the title
tlhunter
added
the
AI Generated
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
tlhunter
force-pushed
the
tlhunter/proc-tags-tel-stats-rc
branch
from
2af8f13 to
065107c
Compare
| agent.removeListener('remote-config-request', handleRemoteConfigRequest) | ||
| done() | ||
| } catch (err) { | ||
| agent.removeListener('remote-config-request', handleRemoteConfigRequest) |
| assert.strictEqual(processTags.DYNAMIC_INSTRUMENTATION_FIELD_NAME, 'process_tags') | ||
| assert.strictEqual(processTags.TELEMETRY_FIELD_NAME, 'process_tags') | ||
| assert.strictEqual(processTags.REMOTE_CONFIG_FIELD_NAME, 'process_tags') | ||
| assert.strictEqual(processTags.CRASH_TRACKING_FIELD_NAME, 'process_tags') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: using assertObjectContains(processTags, { ... }) would improve the output and is simpler to read.
| const snapshot = payload[0].debugger.snapshot | ||
|
|
||
| // Assert that process_tags are present | ||
| assert.ok(snapshot.process_tags) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this not true anymore? If that is now falsy, process_tags would be null.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I made this change to address Watson's comment but you're right it'll be incorrect with a null.
| name: 'foo2', | ||
| enabled: true, | ||
| auto_enabled: true, | ||
| process_tags: require('../../src/process-tags').tagsObject |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can this not just be required once at the top of the file ?
|
One comment + what Mister Bridgewater said, otherwise LGTM |
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Plugin Checklist
Additional Notes