Add operation name frame in stacks with boto api calls #36
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
Comment on lines
88
to
91
| and raw_frame.f_code.co_filename.endswith('botocore/client.py') | ||
| and raw_frame.f_locals and 'py_operation_name' in raw_frame.f_locals.keys() | ||
| and raw_frame.f_locals.get('py_operation_name')): |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to have a unit/integration test that checks a (real, not mocked) boto api call has this "py_operation_name" in the stack? It would help if boto is changing something, so we'd find out as soon as possible.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was a bit worried about doing a real boto call in unit tests because it can fail for different users based on their environment. But I added one that I think should work for everyone.
mirelap-amazon
suggested changes
Jun 23, 2021
Contributor
mirelap-amazon
left a comment
mirelap-amazon
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor comment if a new unit test is possible.
PapaPedro
force-pushed
the
boto-operation-name
branch
4 times, most recently
from
766b546 to
71b0824
Compare
When using API calls from boto we often do not see the operation names in the stack traces even though there is a dedicate function name. This is because of the generic way that api calls are implemented in boto. Unfortunately this is not convenient for profiling as we do not see in flamegraphs which calls are using resources. This change adds a specific check when we build the stacks to detect api calls inside boto and if possible add a new frame with the operation function name. i.e. instead of ``` (...) botocore.client:CloudWatch:_make_api_call botocore.client:CloudWatch:_api_call user_module:send_metric ``` we should end up with ``` (...) botocore.client:CloudWatch:_make_api_call botocore.client:CloudWatch:_api_call botocore.client:CloudWatch:put_metric_data user_module:send_metric ``` This new frame should help when investigating on flamegraphs but also with automatic analysis.
PapaPedro
force-pushed
the
boto-operation-name
branch
from
71b0824 to
5f1cc70
Compare
mirelap-amazon
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
When using API calls from boto we often do not see the operation names
in the stack traces even though there is a dedicate function name. This
is because of the generic way that api calls are implemented in boto.
Unfortunately this is not convenient for profiling as we do not see in
flamegraphs which calls are using resources.
This change adds a specific check when we build the stacks to detect api
calls inside boto and if possible add a new frame with the operation
function name.
i.e. instead of
we should end up with
This new frame should help when investigating on flamegraphs but also
with automatic analysis.
Issue #, if available:
Description of changes:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.