fix(sagemaker): Improve _handle_call to safely parse JSON, CSV, and byte inputs

[swa-kn]

• I have added tests that cover my changes.
• If adding a new instrumentation or changing an existing one, I've added screenshots from some observability platform showing the change. The change done is to Improve _handle_call to safely parse JSON, CSV, and byte inputs in Sagemaker tracing to make the tags visible.

• PR name follows conventional commits format: feat(instrumentation): ... or fix(instrumentation): ....
• (If applicable) I have updated the documentation accordingly.

---

Important

Improve _handle_call in Sagemaker tracing to safely parse JSON, CSV, and byte inputs using _try_parse_json.

• Behavior:
  • Improve _handle_call in __init__.py to safely parse JSON, CSV, and byte inputs.
  • Introduce _try_parse_json to decode JSON from strings or bytes, fallback to raw value on failure.
  • Apply _try_parse_json to request_body and response_body in _handle_call.
• Functions:
  • Add _try_parse_json to handle JSON decoding with error handling.
  • Modify _handle_call to use _try_parse_json for input parsing.

^{This description was created by for 65f79e7. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 65f79e7 in 2 minutes and 2 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 45 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sagemaker/opentelemetry/instrumentation/sagemaker/__init__.py:164

• Draft comment:
  In _handle_call the outputs from _try_parse_json (request_body and response_body) are later passed to json.dumps. If _try_parse_json returns a non-serializable type (like bytes), json.dumps might raise an error. Ensure that the fallback values from _try_parse_json are properly converted to a JSON-serializable format.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. packages/opentelemetry-instrumentation-sagemaker/opentelemetry/instrumentation/sagemaker/__init__.py:147

• Draft comment:
  The PR title suggests improved handling for CSV inputs as well, but _try_parse_json only attempts JSON parsing. If CSV inputs are expected, consider clarifying the behavior (or adding explicit CSV parsing) to match the PR title and description.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment makes assumptions about requirements based on the PR title rather than the code itself. The function is actually well-designed - it tries JSON parsing but gracefully falls back to the raw value if that fails. This means CSV data will pass through unchanged, which is likely the intended behavior. The comment is speculative and asks for clarification rather than pointing out a clear issue. I could be wrong about the requirements - maybe explicit CSV parsing really was intended. The PR title suggesting CSV support provides some evidence for this. Even if CSV parsing was mentioned in the PR title, the code's current behavior of passing through non-JSON data unchanged is a valid approach. Without seeing clear requirements that CSV must be parsed, this comment is too speculative. The comment should be deleted as it's speculative and asks for clarification rather than pointing out a clear code issue. The current code behavior of falling back to raw values is reasonable.

Workflow ID: wflow_dTZhh7VXJkw6mWPA

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[adharshctr]

LGTM

[gyliu513]

LGTM

@nirga @galkleinman can u help review and comment? Thanks!

[nirga]

@swa-kn thanks! can we add tests to that?
(also note the failing lint)

[swa-kn]

Hey @nirga
I believe, the tests already cover the code I have added. Not sure if you want me to add unit tests for the same.