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

[receiver/splunkhec] Drop events when nested indexed fields are present #18068

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 2, 2023

Conversation

hvaghani221
Copy link
Member

Description:
According to the Splunk HEC doc, fields key specifies a JSON object that contains a flat (not nested) list of explicit custom fields to be defined at index time. The current implementation allows receiving nested fields. This PR adds validation for nested fields. When nested fields are found, the entire batch is dropped and will return a 400 error code.

Link to tracking Issue: #17308

Testing: Added necessary unit tests

Documentation:

@runforesight
Copy link

runforesight bot commented Jan 27, 2023

Foresight Summary

    
Major Impacts

build-and-test-windows duration(5 seconds) has decreased 40 minutes 30 seconds compared to main branch avg(40 minutes 35 seconds).
View More Details

✅  tracegen workflow has finished in 58 seconds (1 minute 26 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 27th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
publish-latest -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-stable -     🔗  N/A See Details
build-dev -     🔗  N/A See Details

⭕  build-and-test-windows workflow has finished in 5 seconds (40 minutes 30 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
windows-unittest-matrix -     🔗  N/A See Details
windows-unittest -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  check-links workflow has finished in 1 minute 14 seconds (37 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
changed files -     🔗  N/A See Details
check-links -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  telemetrygen workflow has finished in 1 minute 34 seconds (50 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
build-dev -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-stable -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-latest -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  changelog workflow has finished in 2 minutes 32 seconds and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
changelog -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  prometheus-compliance-tests workflow has finished in 4 minutes 5 seconds (3 minutes 27 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
prometheus-compliance-tests -     🔗  ✅ 21  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details

✅  build-and-test workflow has finished in 47 minutes 56 seconds and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
correctness-metrics -     🔗  ✅ 2  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
correctness-traces -     🔗  ✅ 17  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, extension) -     🔗  ✅ 546  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, internal) -     🔗  ✅ 561  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, internal) -     🔗  ✅ 561  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, processor) -     🔗  ✅ 1471  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, extension) -     🔗  ✅ 546  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, receiver-0) -     🔗  ✅ 2573  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, processor) -     🔗  ✅ 1471  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, receiver-0) -     🔗  ✅ 2573  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, exporter) -     🔗  ✅ 2421  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
integration-tests -     🔗  ✅ 55  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, exporter) -     🔗  ✅ 2421  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, receiver-1) -     🔗  ✅ 1950  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, receiver-1) -     🔗  ✅ 1950  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, other) -     🔗  ✅ 4652  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, other) -     🔗  ✅ 4652  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
setup-environment -     🔗  N/A See Details
check-codeowners -     🔗  N/A See Details
build-examples -     🔗  N/A See Details
check-collector-module-version -     🔗  N/A See Details
checks -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (receiver-0) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (receiver-1) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (processor) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (exporter) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (extension) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (internal) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint-matrix (other) -     🔗  N/A See Details
lint -     🔗  N/A See Details
unittest (1.19) -     🔗  N/A See Details
unittest (1.18) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (darwin, amd64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (darwin, arm64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, 386) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, amd64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, arm) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, arm64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, ppc64le) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (windows, 386) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (windows, amd64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
build-package (deb) -     🔗  N/A See Details
build-package (rpm) -     🔗  N/A See Details
windows-msi -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-check -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-stable -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-dev -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  load-tests workflow has finished in 20 minutes 33 seconds (⚠️ 6 minutes 18 seconds more than main branch avg.) and finished at 31st Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
loadtest (TestIdleMode) -     🔗  ✅ 1  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestTraceAttributesProcessor) -     🔗  ✅ 3  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestMetric10kDPS|TestMetricsFromFile) -     🔗  ✅ 6  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestTraceNoBackend10kSPS|TestTrace1kSPSWithAttrs) -     🔗  ✅ 8  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestMetricResourceProcessor|TestTrace10kSPS) -     🔗  ✅ 12  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestTraceBallast1kSPSWithAttrs|TestTraceBallast1kSPSAddAttrs) -     🔗  ✅ 10  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestBallastMemory|TestLog10kDPS) -     🔗  ✅ 19  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
setup-environment -     🔗  N/A See Details

🔎 See details on Foresight

*You can configure Foresight comments in your organization settings page.

Copy link
Contributor

@MovieStoreGuy MovieStoreGuy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It feels rather odd to change how errors are reported, going from a static string to a formatted JSON string.

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ const (
responseErrInternalServerError = "Internal Server Error"
responseErrUnsupportedMetricEvent = "Unsupported metric event"
responseErrUnsupportedLogEvent = "Unsupported log event"

responseErrHandlingIndexedFields = `{"text":"Error in handling indexed fields","code":15,"invalid-event-number":%d}`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there any reason to have a JSON formatted string here with substitution?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, splunk returns the message in JSON format that I have used for responseErrHandlingIndexedFields. And invalid-event-number points to the index of the event where the problem is.

failRequest method sets Content-Type as application/json but response body is raw text.

resp.Header().Add("Content-Type", "application/json")

We also need to change other err messages to JSON format with respect to the actual splunk response. I'll create a separate issue for that.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Huh, interesting. Thanks for checking that for me.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Created #18097

@MovieStoreGuy
Copy link
Contributor

Could I ask you to fix up the linting issues?

Copy link
Contributor

@atoulme atoulme left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

changes look good to me

@codeboten codeboten merged commit ed9affe into open-telemetry:main Feb 2, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants