ref(logs): Change logic for scrubbing attributes #5095
Closed
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
loewenheim
commented
Aug 28, 2025
Comment on lines
-48
to
+71
| #[allow(clippy::needless_option_as_deref)] | ||
| for rule in rules { | ||
| let reborrowed_value = value.as_deref_mut(); | ||
| apply_rule_to_value(meta, rule, state.path().key(), reborrowed_value)?; | ||
| apply_rule_to_value(meta, rule, state.path().key(), value.as_deref_mut())?; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an incidental change.
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| "applications": { | ||
| "$log.attributes.remove_this_string_abc123.value": ["remove_abc123"], |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this selector working on master is a bug. As I understand it a path starting with $log should not match the top-level object. The test_scrub_log_deep_wild_cards test below fails for a similar reason and is not so easily fixed.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understand it a path starting with $log should not match the top-level object
Why not? Don't we also have $minidump as a selector on the top level object?
jjbayer
reviewed
Aug 29, 2025
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| "applications": { | ||
| "$log.attributes.remove_this_string_abc123.value": ["remove_abc123"], |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understand it a path starting with $log should not match the top-level object
Why not? Don't we also have $minidump as a selector on the top level object?
Comment on lines
+228
to
+239
| match self.attribute_mode { | ||
| AttributeMode::Object => { | ||
| // Treat the attribute as an object and recurse into its children. | ||
| value.process_child_values(self, state) | ||
| } | ||
| AttributeMode::ValueOnly => { | ||
| // Identify the attribute with its value and apply rules there directly. | ||
| let value_state = | ||
| state.enter_nothing(Some(Cow::Owned(FieldAttrs::new().pii(Pii::True)))); | ||
| processor::process_value(&mut value.value.value, self, &value_state) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
Contributor
Author
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.
This is an alternative to #5061.
Instead of hooking into scrubbing
Attributes(via a newprocess_attributesmethod), we do it at the level of individualAttributevalues (via a newprocess_attributemethod). For common scrubbing rules, we just apply them to the attribute's value. For advanced scrubbing rules, we treat attributes as objects and delegate to their fields.The differentiation between the two ways to treat attributes is controlled by a field
attribute_modeof typeAttributeModeonPiiProcessor. This decouples the logic from logs and makes it explicit what is happening.TODO: Handle
otherinValueOnlymode.ref: #5096 ref: RELAY-152