fix(node): Skip capturing Hapi Boom error responses. #11151
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
size-limit report 📦
|
onurtemizkan
force-pushed
the
onur/hapi-skip-boom-responses
branch
4 times, most recently
from
762985d to
9b45cec
Compare
onurtemizkan
force-pushed
the
onur/hapi-skip-boom-responses
branch
from
9b45cec to
c671e1f
Compare
mydea
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2024
AbhiPrasad
changed the title
Closed
AbhiPrasad
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2024
Resolves: #11069 After checking the behaviour, it seems to me that we don't need to capture any Boom responses, as the errors that may cause a `5xx` response are already captured by the core logic. To add an option to control this behaviour, we need to update the usage of `hapiErrorPlugin`, converting it to a function signature, which IMO may not worth doing, as I'm not sure if users in general would need to use it. This also adds `expectError()` to the `node-integration-tests` runner to allow `5xx` responses to be tested.
AbhiPrasad
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2024
Resolves: #11069 After checking the behaviour, it seems to me that we don't need to capture any Boom responses, as the errors that may cause a `5xx` response are already captured by the core logic. To add an option to control this behaviour, we need to update the usage of `hapiErrorPlugin`, converting it to a function signature, which IMO may not worth doing, as I'm not sure if users in general would need to use it. This also adds `expectError()` to the `node-integration-tests` runner to allow `5xx` responses to be tested.
AbhiPrasad
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2024
Backport of #11151 to v7 Co-authored-by: Onur Temizkan <[email protected]>
cadesalaberry
pushed a commit
to cadesalaberry/sentry-javascript
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
Resolves: getsentry#11069 After checking the behaviour, it seems to me that we don't need to capture any Boom responses, as the errors that may cause a `5xx` response are already captured by the core logic. To add an option to control this behaviour, we need to update the usage of `hapiErrorPlugin`, converting it to a function signature, which IMO may not worth doing, as I'm not sure if users in general would need to use it. This also adds `expectError()` to the `node-integration-tests` runner to allow `5xx` responses to be tested.
|
This doesn't seem to be in the 8.7.0 release? |
|
This was released with |
|
I mean this particular fix. It looks like develop has not been merged to master since this was merged. Edit: I might just be confused about the project structure when looking at the downloaded source. I haven't actually reproduced. |
|
https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/commits/master/?author=onurtemizkan 
The commit shows up in the master branch you're right though that master is the source of truth for the releases, but master and develop are synced up. if you have a repro, thats best for us to take another look! |
|
Looks like updates in this commit did not apply when we moved this integration from |
|
ah good catch! does the same apply for v7? |
|
Thanks! |
|
@onurtemizkan thanks for catching this (and thank you @camsteffen for reporting!!) we'll get this in with the next release |
AbhiPrasad
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2024
Recreating #11151 for v8 again, as the updates seem to be lost when moving the instrumentation inside the project structure. The testing updates introduced in the original PR do exist in develop / master, so this PR only reintroduces changes in the instrumentation code.
1 task
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.
Resolves: #11069
After checking the behaviour, it seems to me that we don't need to capture any Boom responses, as the errors that may cause a
5xxresponse are already captured by the core logic. To add an option to control this behaviour, we need to update the usage ofhapiErrorPlugin, converting it to a function signature, which IMO may not worth doing, as I'm not sure if users in general would need to use it.This also adds
expectError()to thenode-integration-testsrunner to allow5xxresponses to be tested.