feat(opentelemetry-sampler-aws-xray): Add Rate Limiter and Sampling Targets Poller Logic #2924
Conversation
…argets Poller Logic
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2924 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.99% 89.04% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 188 188
Lines 9181 9181
Branches 1889 1889
==========================================
+ Hits 8171 8175 +4
+ Misses 1010 1006 -4 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
||
| import { SamplingRuleApplier } from './sampling-rule-applier'; | ||
| import { PACKAGE_NAME } from './version'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How this file is generated? I tried 'npm run setup:dev' and 'npm run compile', none of them generate this file and that is causing build failure.
|
|
||
| constructor() { | ||
| this.fixedRateSampler = new TraceIdRatioBasedSampler(0.05); | ||
| this.rateLimitingSampler = new RateLimitingSampler(1); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider allowing these values to be passed as params with default value. That will it more reusable.
| this.rateLimitingSampler = new RateLimitingSampler(1); | |
| constructor(rateLimit: number = 1, ratio: number = 0.05) { | |
| this.fixedRateSampler = new TraceIdRatioBasedSampler(ratio); | |
| this.rateLimitingSampler = new RateLimitingSampler(rateLimit); | |
| } |
| if ( | ||
| sampler.shouldSample( | ||
| context.active(), | ||
| '1234', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it true that we intentionally use an invalid trace ID to avoid being sampled by the Fixed Rate Sampler? If that is the case, can we use an const variable instead of the magic string? Or maybe a comment here. That will make it easier to understand the purpose of the UT.
| '1234', | |
| const InvaidTraceIdToAvoidFixedRateSampler = '1234', |
|
|
||
| const quotaPerMillis: number = this.quota / 1000.0; | ||
|
|
||
| // assume divide by zero not possible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about combine line 45 and 48: = (cost * 1000) / quota; so you don't need this comment.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public toString(): string { | ||
| return `RateLimitingSampler{rate limiting sampling with sampling config of ${this.quota} req/sec and 0% of additional requests}`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: do we need 'and 0% of additional requests' in the context of rate limiting?
| @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ export class AWSXRaySamplingClient { | |||
| this.makeSamplingRequest<GetSamplingTargetsResponse>( | |||
| this.samplingTargetsEndpoint, | |||
| callback, | |||
| this.samplerDiag.debug, | |||
| this.samplerDiag.debug.bind(this.samplerDiag), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit. lambda is modern, more readable.
(message: string, ...args: unknown[]) => this.samplerDiag.debug(message, ...args)
| targetDocuments: TargetMap, | ||
| lastRuleModification: number | ||
| ): [boolean, number] { | ||
| let minPollingInteral: number | undefined = undefined; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo: do you mean 'interval'?
Which problem is this PR solving?
Short description of the changes
This PR is a followup to #2824
SamplingRuleApplier.SamplingRuleApplierwill sample the requests.GetSamplingTargetscall to determine the next targetRateLimitingSampler(applied before the fixed rate sampler) to be used in each rule applier.FallbackSampleris updated to be a combination of above samplers to sample1 req/secand5%of additional requests in that second.This PR's implementation was tested against X-Ray's Centralized Sampling Integration tests.