Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pass scope data for transactions in serverless #2975

Merged

Conversation

marshall-lee
Copy link
Contributor

In #2945 I added transaction support in a way that it doesn't capture any context info for transaction events :(
Though it captures exception events context just fine, it misses the context for transaction events. This PR aims to fix it.

Copy link
Member

@HazAT HazAT left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, the PR itself looks good.
We have another bug
#2976

Can you add this into your PR then we can close the other.

tl;dr for setting SDK info we need to use addGlobalEventProcessor

@marshall-lee marshall-lee force-pushed the serverless/fix-transactions-scope branch from a36385b to 9ed478f Compare October 19, 2020 14:46
@marshall-lee
Copy link
Contributor Author

@HazAT

I ported your approach with addGlobalEventProcessor to this branch. But I call adding of event processor in init function, not on a top level. These modules are supposed to have no side effects for the sake of tree shaking.

@marshall-lee marshall-lee force-pushed the serverless/fix-transactions-scope branch from 9ed478f to cbe5cd6 Compare October 19, 2020 14:49
@marshall-lee
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kamilogorek ping

@kamilogorek kamilogorek merged commit 2ed3b46 into getsentry:master Oct 20, 2020
@kamilogorek
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks!

@marshall-lee marshall-lee deleted the serverless/fix-transactions-scope branch October 20, 2020 10:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants