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

Bug 1697342 - Support Glean.js pings in Rally decoder #1617

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
Mar 30, 2021

Conversation

acmiyaguchi
Copy link
Contributor

@acmiyaguchi acmiyaguchi commented Mar 23, 2021

bug link

This reuses much of the code from the DecryptAetIdentifiers and DecryptPioneerPayloads package.

@acmiyaguchi

This comment has been minimized.

@acmiyaguchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

The second document has no problems. But the first document has issues going through the decrypt stage, returning rally_id instead of rally.id. I think there could be a bug with Jackson.

With a clearer head, I found out that the ciphertext was out of date. Everything works as expected.

@acmiyaguchi acmiyaguchi changed the title wip: Bug 1697342 - Support Glean.js pings in Rally decoder Bug 1697342 - Support Glean.js pings in Rally decoder Mar 26, 2021
@acmiyaguchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

image

The new decoder has a conditional transform to handle the legacy pioneer behavior.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #1617 (4491cae) into master (ada88f7) will decrease coverage by 12.71%.
The diff coverage is 91.42%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1617       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     86.40%   73.69%   -12.72%     
+ Complexity      730      611      -119     
=============================================
  Files           106       80       -26     
  Lines          4340     3406      -934     
  Branches        401      369       -32     
=============================================
- Hits           3750     2510     -1240     
- Misses          466      796      +330     
+ Partials        124      100       -24     
Flag Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
ingestion_beam 73.69% <91.42%> (-8.61%) 0.00 <10.00> (ø)
ingestion_edge ? ?
ingestion_sink ? ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...m/mozilla/telemetry/PioneerBenchmarkGenerator.java 0.00% <0.00%> (ø) 0.00 <0.00> (ø)
...elemetry/decoder/rally/DecryptPioneerPayloads.java 93.75% <ø> (ø) 7.00 <0.00> (?)
...zilla/telemetry/decoder/rally/DecryptPayloads.java 90.00% <90.00%> (ø) 3.00 <3.00> (?)
.../telemetry/decoder/rally/DecryptRallyPayloads.java 91.25% <91.25%> (ø) 5.00 <5.00> (?)
...m/src/main/java/com/mozilla/telemetry/Decoder.java 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) 9.00 <2.00> (ø)
...etry/transforms/KeyByBigQueryTableDestination.java 0.00% <0.00%> (-86.77%) 0.00% <0.00%> (-17.00%)
...m/src/main/java/com/mozilla/telemetry/io/Read.java 9.23% <0.00%> (-72.31%) 1.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
.../telemetry/transforms/PubsubMessageToTableRow.java 4.25% <0.00%> (-65.96%) 0.00% <0.00%> (-7.00%)
.../src/main/java/com/mozilla/telemetry/io/Write.java 42.85% <0.00%> (-49.31%) 1.00% <0.00%> (ø%)
...ozilla/telemetry/transforms/PubsubConstraints.java 41.46% <0.00%> (-39.03%) 6.00% <0.00%> (-1.00%)
... and 42 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ada88f7...4491cae. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@jklukas jklukas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nothing blocking here, but I'd like to see less responsibility encoded directly in Decoder.java and left a few other comments about improving clarity for future readers. Mark me for review again when you've had a chance to respond, and I think we'll be good to go.

Copy link
Contributor

@jklukas jklukas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Refactor looks great. Left a few more non-blocking suggestions for further clarity.

@acmiyaguchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alright, I'm going to merge this in. Thanks for the review @jklukas!

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

4 participants