HWKAPM-817 Add OT agent instrumentation rules for EJB #738
Conversation
|
@pavolloffay @jpkrohling Could review please? Notes:
|
| IF !$2.getName().equals("onMessage") | ||
| DO | ||
| startSpanWithParent(getTracer().buildSpan($2.getName()) | ||
| .withTag("EJB.uri", truncateAtDelimiter(simpleClassName($1),"$$$")), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a more reliable way to get the proxied bean name? Also, is this the bean name (interface), or the implementing class name? Would it be interesting to store also the kind of bean being invoked (Home, Local Home, Remote)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its the implementing class name. I'll investigate, I originally copied some byteman rules someone else had created for tracking EJB usage.
|
Agree automated is better, but depends whether we should have a set of tests that depend on a separate server to be launched (not sure how many of the agent rules would require this), or test by example (i.e. create a JEE example that incorporates EJBs, and verify the trace data using the instrumentation-test framework)? If first option, we then have the choice between arquillian, which we haven't used so far, or just using the wildfly maven plugin? |
| @@ -435,4 +435,8 @@ protected TraceContext getTraceContext() { | |||
| } | |||
| return state; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public String toString() { | |||
| return super.toString() + "[operationName=" + getOperationName() + " state=" + state() + "]"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
super does not define toString() if it's added we end up with two operation names.
|
If it can be tested with arqullian, it's better than instrumentation-framework I think. At least faster. |
No description provided.