Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat: blobby ingestion warnings #20963
feat: blobby ingestion warnings #20963
Changes from 9 commits
7450be0
dfb166f
7964bcc
6ffa7f4
074dad9
30d94af
70053b0
7f2a7bc
c9e0dc1
3772513
739d76a
ed3df5c
310a98c
c0d3002
76fc781
a92ce2d
3932482
5f42c4f
debc0d3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's best not to rate-limit these, as they contain useful info and merges are supposed to be rare.
I support not making the rate-limiting optional to avoid deploying a bomb, but let's add
mergeIntoDistinctId
as the debounce key for these the three warnings on this fileThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pushed a solution to let us override the debounce key construction so that the three uses in the person state are debounced together.... is that what you meant?
(happy to change it if I'm being silly :))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for being unclear: I do not wish to debounce these warnings, and send all of them to CH. They should be extremely infrequent unless there's a subtle instrumentation bug, and in that case it's better to have as much info as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so keeping the safe by default... i've made it opt in to always sending rather than implicit on absent debounce key for e.g.
so