Fix bugs in force_flush

[dinmukhamedm]

Note

Introduce RLock-guarded tracing exporter/processor with atomic instance swaps and update version to 0.7.19.

• Tracing:
  • Add threading.RLock to LaminarSpanExporter and LaminarSpanProcessor.
  • Guard export, shutdown, force_flush in exporter; guard on_start, on_end, force_flush, shutdown, clear in processor.
  • Refactor _init_instance in exporter to atomically swap instances with safe shutdown of old.
  • Update processor.force_reinit to safely replace processor instance and reinit exporter.
• Version:
  • Bump version to 0.7.19 in pyproject.toml and src/lmnr/version.py.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 06d1088. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

---

Important

Introduce thread-safe locking and atomic instance swaps in tracing exporter/processor and bump version to 0.7.19.

• Tracing:
  • Exporter (exporter.py):
    • Add threading.RLock; guard export, shutdown, force_flush.
    • Introduce _init_instance() for atomic instance swaps with cleanup.
  • Processor (processor.py):
    • Add threading.RLock; guard on_start, on_end, force_flush, shutdown, and path maps updates.
    • Rework force_reinit for atomic processor instance replacement, preserving batch mode and shutting down old instance.
• Versioning:
  • Bump package version to 0.7.19 in pyproject.toml and version.py.

^{This description was created by for 06d1088. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[cursor]

Bug: Race Condition in clear() Method

The clear() method modifies shared span tracking dictionaries (__span_id_to_path, __span_id_lists) without using self._lock. This creates a race condition with on_start() and other methods that access these dictionaries under lock, potentially causing data corruption or an inconsistent state.

 

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 438ec5e in 2 minutes and 9 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 192 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. pyproject.toml:9

• Draft comment:
  Version bumped to 0.7.19. Ensure this is consistent with version in version.py.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment starts with "Ensure that..." which is explicitly called out in our rules as likely not useful. It's asking for verification rather than pointing out a concrete issue. If there was actually a version mismatch, the comment should state that directly. Additionally, version consistency would likely be caught by CI/build systems. Maybe version mismatches are serious enough that we should keep verification comments about them? Maybe the build system doesn't actually check this? Even if version mismatches are serious, the comment should point out an actual mismatch if one exists, not just ask for verification. Version checks are typically part of build/release processes. The comment should be deleted as it violates our rule about verification requests and doesn't point out a concrete issue.

2. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/exporter.py:100

• Draft comment:
  The atomic swap with shutdown() inside the lock is good, but if shutdown() is blocking, it could delay other calls. Consider verifying shutdown() does not introduce performance issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment suggests verifying the behavior of shutdown(), which is against the rules as it asks the author to ensure there are no performance issues. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

3. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/exporter.py:112

• Draft comment:
  Wrapping export() within the lock is a sound approach. Ensure that the underlying exporter's export method is free from deadlock risks when used this way.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the author to ensure that a method is free from deadlock risks, which is a general request for verification. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue in the code. It violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things.

4. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:109

• Draft comment:
  Using a lock in force_reinit for the processor ensures thread safety. Note that calling exporter._init_instance() (a protected method) externally may warrant reconsideration for a more public API if reinitialization is common.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 20% <= threshold 50% The comment is informative, explaining the use of a lock for thread safety and suggesting reconsideration of using a protected method. It doesn't ask for any specific action or confirmation from the PR author, nor does it provide a code suggestion or highlight a potential issue. Therefore, it doesn't align with the rules for useful comments.

5. src/lmnr/version.py:6

• Draft comment:
  Updated version to 0.7.19. Verify that all version references across the project remain consistent with this bump.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the PR author to verify consistency of version references across the project, which falls under asking the author to double-check things. This violates the rules.

Workflow ID: wflow_s8WmG21LbrkyzTDq

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed b216522 in 56 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 31 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:88

• Draft comment:
  Good move: assignments to __span_id_to_path and __span_id_lists are now protected by _lock to prevent race conditions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative, explaining a change made to the code. It does not provide a suggestion, ask for confirmation, or point out a potential issue. It violates the rule against making purely informative comments.

2. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:132

• Draft comment:
  Using _lock in clear() ensures thread-safe resetting of shared dictionaries.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions for improvement. It simply states that using _lock in clear() ensures thread safety, which is not aligned with the guidelines for useful comments.

Workflow ID: wflow_8cQJyrgi4kP1ZH2L

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[cursor]

Bug: Shared Class Attributes Cause Concurrent Modification Issues

The __span_id_to_path and __span_id_lists dictionaries are class-level mutable attributes, shared across all LaminarSpanProcessor instances. Protecting these shared class attributes with instance-level locks (self._lock) is ineffective, causing race conditions and data corruption when multiple instances concurrently modify them.

 

[cursor]

Bug: Race Condition in on_start Method

The on_start method has a race condition where __span_id_to_path and __span_id_lists are read before acquiring the lock, but written to while holding it. This concurrent access can lead to inconsistent data or state.

 

[dinmukhamedm]

Both bugbot comments are valid and known, and the issue LAM-782 is created for it. Also crosslinking this PR in the issue. They are out of scope of this PR

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed e5eaf46 in 57 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 113 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/exporter.py:26

• Draft comment:
  Clearer naming: _lock renamed to _instance_lock improves clarity. Ensure corresponding docs/comments are updated.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

2. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:88

• Draft comment:
  Consider minimizing lock hold time in on_start by moving the call to instance.on_start outside the lock if possible, to reduce potential contention.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:115

• Draft comment:
  Shutdown is called under lock in force_reinit. If shutdown may block, consider moving it outside the lock (if atomic guarantees permit) to avoid unnecessary lock hold.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_Dlc9VLKVw68KzuPJ

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 06d1088 in 1 minute and 2 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 105 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:31

• Draft comment:
  Using two separate locks (_instance_lock and _paths_lock) for instance operations vs. span attribute mappings improves isolation. Ensure that future changes keep a consistent lock ordering.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:68

• Draft comment:
  In on_start, the update of span attributes and the internal dictionaries is guarded by _paths_lock, while the call to self.instance.on_start is done under _instance_lock. Verify that the separation and sequential acquisition do not introduce deadlock risks if future nested locking occurs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

3. src/lmnr/opentelemetry_lib/tracing/processor.py:115

• Draft comment:
  In force_reinit, exporter._init_instance() is called outside any lock. Confirm that this method is internally thread‐safe or consider protecting it with a lock to ensure atomicity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_jrWg5cqevRuOYyFX

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}