chore(slos): add slos for refresher #93483
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
Scope: Backend
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is ✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #93483 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 41.28% 88.03% +46.74%
===========================================
Files 10264 10294 +30
Lines 592759 593863 +1104
Branches 23044 23044
===========================================
+ Hits 244748 522803 +278055
+ Misses 347562 70611 -276951
Partials 449 449 |
| with SentryAppInteractionEvent( | ||
| operation_type=SentryAppInteractionType.AUTHORIZATIONS, | ||
| event_type=SentryAppEventType.REFRESHER, | ||
| ).capture() as lifecycle: | ||
| context = { | ||
| "installation_uuid": self.install.uuid, | ||
| "client_id": self.application.client_id[:SENSITIVE_CHARACTER_LIMIT], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'cause it's the client id. I feel like both the client id + secret would fall under the sensitive umbrella(?) 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Client ID is not considered sensitive in the same sense as the client secret, but I'm fine with obscuring it personally. The installation UUID gives us enough logging context to trace things correctly I think and we can always change this if our logging is insufficient.
| with SentryAppInteractionEvent( | ||
| operation_type=SentryAppInteractionType.AUTHORIZATIONS, | ||
| event_type=SentryAppEventType.REFRESHER, | ||
| ).capture() as lifecycle: | ||
| context = { | ||
| "installation_uuid": self.install.uuid, | ||
| "client_id": self.application.client_id[:SENSITIVE_CHARACTER_LIMIT], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Client ID is not considered sensitive in the same sense as the client secret, but I'm fine with obscuring it personally. The installation UUID gives us enough logging context to trace things correctly I think and we can always change this if our logging is insufficient.
Adds SLOs for token refresh process 👀