Enforce attribute limit #330
Conversation
|
+@vigneshtdev for review. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #330 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95% 94.92% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 120 120
Lines 8202 8213 +11
Branches 730 732 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 7792 7796 +4
- Misses 410 417 +7
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| this.activeTraceParams.numberOfAttributesPerSpan) { | ||
| const attributeKeyToDelete = | ||
| Object.keys(this.attributes.attributeMap).shift(); | ||
| delete this.attributes.attributeMap[attributeKeyToDelete]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why delete an existing attribute rather than just dropping the new attribute? Is that the specified way to do it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This implementation is based on the spec here: https://github.com/census-instrumentation/opencensus-specs/blob/master/trace/TraceConfig.md#limits
When limits are exceeded, implementations should by default preserve the most recently added values and drop the oldest values.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does shift() guarantee that it returns the oldest?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per my knowledge, integer properties are sorted, others (non-integer) are listed in the creation order. shift -> Removes the first element from an array. @draffensperger correct me, if I am wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked on the order by running the following JS in a node console:
x = {}
x.b = 2
x.a = 1
Object.keys(x) // gives ['b', 'a'] as expected
y = {}
y.a = 1
y.b = 2
Object.keys(y) // gives ['a', 'b'] as expected
That said, what would you think about adding a unit test to validate this "removes the last attribute" behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do have unit test to cover this -> https://github.com/census-instrumentation/opencensus-node/pull/330/files#diff-0ab7878c00c0a6393dd66fd59e796156R337. Just wanted to make sure this is not passing by fluke.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| this.attributes.attributeMap[key] = value; | ||
| this.attributes.droppedAttributesCount = this.totalRecordedAttributes - |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it work to just increment this.attributes.droppedAttributesCount in the above if block?
| /** Trace Parameters */ | ||
| activeTraceParams: configTypes.TraceParams; | ||
|
|
||
| private totalRecordedAttributes = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we increment droppedAttributeCount do we need this field?
mayurkale22
force-pushed
the
enforce_attributes_limit
branch
from
b64c88f
to
28c7d05
Compare
| this.activeTraceParams.numberOfAttributesPerSpan) { | ||
| const attributeKeyToDelete = | ||
| Object.keys(this.attributes.attributeMap).shift(); | ||
| delete this.attributes.attributeMap[attributeKeyToDelete]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does shift() guarantee that it returns the oldest?
| @@ -331,13 +334,16 @@ describe('OpenCensus Agent Exporter', () => { | |||
| rootSpan.setStatus(CanonicalCode.OK); | |||
|
|
|||
| // Attribute | |||
| rootSpan.addAttribute('my_first_attribute', 'foo'); | |||
| rootSpan.addAttribute('my_second_attribute', 'foo2'); | |||
| rootSpan.addAttribute('my_attribute_string', 'bar2'); | |||
| rootSpan.addAttribute('my_attribute_number', 456); | |||
| rootSpan.addAttribute('my_attribute_boolean', false); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Change the test to add same key again such that it is no longer oldest and hence should not be deleted.
This PR will address the first part of #316