[DI] add process tags to dynamic instrumentation #7132
Conversation
tlhunter
added
the
AI Generated
Overall package sizeSelf size: 4.35 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 #7132 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 84.78% 84.79%
=======================================
Files 521 521
Lines 22155 22157 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 18785 18787 +2
Misses 3370 3370 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
BenchmarksBenchmark execution time: 2025-12-18 21:18:50 Comparing candidate commit ac05a9e in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 293 metrics, 27 unstable metrics. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
tlhunter
force-pushed
the
tlhunter/process-tags-dynamic-instrumentation
branch
4 times, most recently
from
2882395 to
7cab70c
Compare
|
@tlhunter this PR could do with a better description. I'm not sure what process tags is and why it's added to the snapshot |
tlhunter
force-pushed
the
tlhunter/process-tags-dynamic-instrumentation
branch
from
fc68c4a to
ac05a9e
Compare
|
Just rebased on the chai -> assert migration |
watson
left a comment
watson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer a few minor things to be cleaned up, but since the holidays are coming up, I will not want to be a blocker, so I'll approve this PR (as it's just minor optimizations). It would be best to just fix them, and feel free to do so and to get someone else to approve the PR afterwards, but it could also be fixed in a follow-up PR if you prefer.
| const snapshot = payload[0].debugger.snapshot | ||
|
|
||
| // Assert that process_tags are present | ||
| assert.ok(snapshot.process_tags) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: I usually don't add extra asserts to validate that a given property is present, if I can assert its value instead. Especially if you as here do that on the very next line.
Same in the section below
| language: 'javascript' | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (config.propagateProcessTags?.enabled) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I can see in the client lib config, propagateProcessTags will always be an object, right?
| if (config.propagateProcessTags?.enabled) { | |
| if (config.propagateProcessTags.enabled) { |
What does this PR do?
Motivation