Skip to content

Conversation

@antonpirker
Copy link
Contributor

Make sure to set the transaction name.

@antonpirker antonpirker requested review from sentrivana and sl0thentr0py and removed request for sl0thentr0py December 17, 2024 12:05
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2024

❌ 257 Tests Failed:

Tests completed Failed Passed Skipped
12738 257 12481 3318
View the top 3 failed tests by shortest run time
 tests.integrations.quart.test_quart
Stack Traces | 0s run time
No failure message available
 tests.integrations.quart.test_quart
Stack Traces | 0s run time
No failure message available
tests.integrations.arq.test_arq test_job_retry[init_arq]
Stack Traces | 0.064s run time
.../integrations/arq/test_arq.py:180: in test_job_retry
    assert event["contexts"]["trace"]["status"] == "aborted"
E   AssertionError: assert 'ok' == 'aborted'
E     - aborted
E     + ok

To view more test analytics, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Copy link
Contributor

@sentrivana sentrivana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, see one small comment

Comment on lines +64 to +67
sentry_sdk.get_current_scope().set_transaction_name(
root_span_name,
source=TRANSACTION_SOURCE_TASK,
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this work before we even started the transaction? Maybe logically it'd better fit inside the root_span context manager?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@antonpirker antonpirker Dec 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because this sets the transaction name only on the scope, this should be fine.

The other question this brought up inside me is why the ray integration does no isolation scope forking anywhere...

I will test this tomorrow.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, this works and is correct.

@antonpirker antonpirker merged commit f6e9162 into potel-base Dec 18, 2024
85 of 127 checks passed
@antonpirker antonpirker deleted the antonpirker/potel/ray branch December 18, 2024 09:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants