feat(billing-platform): package service protos by volokluev · Pull Request #201 · getsentry/sentry-protos

volokluev · 2026-04-17T22:40:08Z

This PR creates a package service directory and extracts the PricingConfig out of the V1 contract service and puts it onto the package service.

In doing so, I'm pulling out things which are going to be used across services such as:

Tier definitions
billable metrics
LineItems

I am also moving AWAY from defining SKUs in protos and away from the name SKU in general. It has too many connotations, nobody knows what it means. The word we are using to express the thing that will be billed for (and show up as a line item on an invoice) is LineItem

I am making the package service be the source of truth for:

What to call a line item
how a line item is derived from usage data

we should not need to define the line item in our protos

…ervice Consolidate billing protos by moving common items (line_item_details, unit_info) from v2/common to v1/common and add new package service definitions. Update package declarations and import paths to reflect new v1 location. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Move PricingTier and TieredPricingRate message definitions from package service to common/v1 directory for reusability across services. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-04-17T22:40:20Z

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow ci / buf-checks (pull_request).

Build	Format	Lint	Breaking	Updated (UTC)
`✅ passed`	`⏩ skipped`	`✅ passed`	`✅ passed`	Apr 20, 2026, 10:40 PM

brendanhsentry · 2026-04-20T17:51:29Z

+  oneof reserved_units {
+    bool is_unlimited = 5;
+    uint64 num_reserved_units = 6; // the type communicates whether the line item is unlimited or not, additionally reserved budget line items have a non-zero reserved_rate in addition to 0 reserved_units
+  }


shouldn't this live in the Contract? or will each contract also create a Package?

Good call, I think I should change the naming. This should be more like inlcuded_reserved_units

noahsmartin · 2026-04-20T18:14:53Z

+  string full_name = 2;
+
+  // Base unit for conversion (e.g., "byte", "meter", "count").
+  string base_unit = 3;


Can we make this an enum?

noahsmartin · 2026-04-20T18:19:31Z

+  repeated LineItemConfig line_item_configs = 2;
+  repeated SharedLineItemBudget shared_line_item_budgets = 3;
+  // Base price for the package.
+  uint64 base_price_cents = 4;


Can we turn base price into a line item? I think it should be representable as an Expression. We might have additional kinds of constant non-usage based pricing in the future that would be nice to model all in the same way

On the one hand it makes sense, you define a line item and then it directly becomes an invoice line item, on the other hand, there is a relationship here that I don't think makes sense to discard.

this may be the problem with calling things LineItem(s) instead of SKUs or Products. Because we use this word, we expect that what we define in a package will map 1:1 with an invoice line item (which afaics is a presentation concern), rather than a category of invoice line items. For example: an invoice will have:

metrics (base price): $10 metrics (reserved_spend): $30 metrics (payg spend): $20

Presented on an invoice, they may all be different lines, but they are part of the same category of line items with a pricing configuration that is defined as one.

In the package service, I'm not actually describing the line items separately, I describing a product and what its rates are (in this case metrics).

If I think about driving the checkout page, it makes sense to bundle together the related costs of metrics (base price, included reserved units, reservation costs, and payg costs).

I think I also may have mis-perceived what you were commenting on. You meant to make the package base price into a lineitem. Let me consider that a bit more. My initial reaction is I'm not opposed to it, and it's also probably not hard to change later

oh yeah I meant the package base price 👍 (like $29)

Add test demonstrating how to create a BillableMetric with a complex expression that combines two data categories using binary operations. Shows the pattern: profile_indexed * 0.3 + transaction_indexed Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Remove assertions from test as it's only meant to illustrate how the protos work together, not verify implementation details. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

brendanhsentry · 2026-04-20T19:46:28Z

+  repeated sentry_protos.billing.v1.common.v1.LineItemDetails line_items = 3;
+}
+
+message PackageConfig {


we'll want a field to specify annual vs monthly packages

I envisioned that being on the contract not the package, but thinking about it more I guess the billing cadence determines what the actual price is so maybe it has to be on the package

I have added it, good spot

- Add proper oneof name (category_type) to CategoryReference - Rename fields to data_category and seat_category to avoid conflicts - Add BaseUnit enum to unit_info.proto - Update tests to use new field names - Fix Rust test to include date field in GetContractRequest - Regenerate Rust bindings Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

brendanhsentry · 2026-04-20T21:53:12Z

+
+message LineItemConfig {
+  // Base price for the line item (upgraded reserved volumes or add-on activation fees)
+  uint64 base_price_cents = 1;


so would we have a LineItemConfig for each reserved tier? ie 50k errors, 100k errors, etc. Could we add a field that specifies the cost for each reserved tier? then just keep base_price_cents for add-on activation fees only

WE talked in person:

reserved tiers are stored in reserved_rates, the comment was unhelpful because "reserverd budget line items" has a legacy connotation

krithikravi

agree that BillableMetric.name and LineItemDetails.customer_facing_name are redundant because it's a 1:1 relationship anyway, otherwise lgtm

volokluev and others added 4 commits April 17, 2026 14:58

add common items

9bc00b0

add billable metric definition

e915632

refactor(billing): Extract pricing tier protos to common

3e6dab3

Move PricingTier and TieredPricingRate message definitions from package service to common/v1 directory for reusability across services. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

ba37fd7

brendanhsentry reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

noahsmartin reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/common/v1/billable_metric.proto

noahsmartin reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/common/v1/line_item_details.proto Outdated

noahsmartin reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

volokluev and others added 2 commits April 20, 2026 11:27

PR comments

ee8fc29

noahsmartin reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/common/v1/billable_metric.proto

volokluev commented Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread py/tests/test_billing_v1.py Outdated

test(billing): Simplify billable metric test to focus on illustration

ccf22e6

Remove assertions from test as it's only meant to illustrate how the protos work together, not verify implementation details. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

brendanhsentry reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

volokluev and others added 4 commits April 20, 2026 13:19

add billing interval

642aa79

Merge branch 'main' into volo/package_protos

2b21985

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

ea24bf8

brendanhsentry reviewed Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread proto/sentry_protos/billing/v1/services/package/v1/package.proto Outdated

volokluev and others added 2 commits April 20, 2026 15:39

remove unecessary field, change Budget to pool

3349203

chore: Regenerate Rust bindings

fe14522

volokluev marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2026 22:41

brendanhsentry approved these changes Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

krithikravi approved these changes Apr 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

volokluev merged commit 4746c5c into main Apr 20, 2026
12 checks passed

sentry-release-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2026

publish: getsentry/sentry-protos@0.8.14 getsentry/publish#7888

Closed

4 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

volokluev commented Apr 17, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

krithikravi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

github-actions Bot commented Apr 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading