Skip to content

feat(node): Add Sentry tRPC middleware #7511

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Mar 30, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions packages/node/src/index.ts
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ const INTEGRATIONS = {

export { INTEGRATIONS as Integrations, Handlers };

export { trpcMiddleware } from './trpc';
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

h: let's put this under Handlers for now. I don't think we need to worry about tree-shaking and this matches the pattern we have with the rest of the SDK. We can re-evaluate this at a later time.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done! f74e161


// We need to patch domain on the global __SENTRY__ object to make it work for node in cross-platform packages like
// @sentry/core. If we don't do this, browser bundlers will have troubles resolving `require('domain')`.
const carrier = getMainCarrier();
Expand Down
44 changes: 44 additions & 0 deletions packages/node/src/trpc.ts
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
import { getCurrentHub } from '@sentry/core';
import { normalize } from '@sentry/utils';

interface SentryTrpcMiddlewareOptions {
attachRpcInput?: boolean;
}

interface TrpcMiddlewareArguments<T> {
path: string;
type: 'query' | 'mutation' | 'subscription';
next: () => T;
rawInput: unknown;
}

/**
* Sentry tRPC middleware that names the handling transaction after the called procedure.
*
* Use the Sentry tRPC middleware in combination with the Sentry server integration,
* e.g. Express Request Handlers or Next.js SDK.
*/
export async function trpcMiddleware(options: SentryTrpcMiddlewareOptions = {}) {
return function <T>({ path, type, next, rawInput }: TrpcMiddlewareArguments<T>): T {
const hub = getCurrentHub();
const clientOptions = hub.getClient()?.getOptions();
const sentryTransaction = hub.getScope()?.getTransaction();

if (sentryTransaction) {
sentryTransaction.setName(`trcp/${path}`, 'route');
sentryTransaction.op = 'rpc.server';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/trace/semantic_conventions/rpc.md I don't see rpc.server operation in the spec we follow, there's rpc only. Do we make a distinction here ourselves?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In general, I think it is fine to append stuff to the span op. I think there is a hierarchy to it. The docs are just a guide to set the baseline ops we should use.

Here I decided to append .server because we could at some point decide that we would like to instrument the client side part of RPCs and there we would probably call it rpc.client. Similar to how we do it with http.server and http.client.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah this is fine, we can update our span operations spec to account for this https://develop.sentry.dev/sdk/performance/span-operations/


const trpcData: Record<string, unknown> = {
procedureType: type,
};

if (options.attachRpcInput !== undefined ? options.attachRpcInput : clientOptions?.sendDefaultPii) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This might be somewhat confusing to users. sendDefaultPii is documented as something that controls headers and cookies, not the user-provided input.
I'd probably change it to options.attachRpcInput and add default to options: SentryTrpcMiddlewareOptions = {}, which is not currently set as optional anyway.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lforst lforst Mar 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sendDefaultPii has become much broader lately. We have a few places where we send additional data if sendDefaultPii is set to true, asides from just cookies and header. The docs just state cookies and headers as an example.

You're right about the optional options object. Thanks! --> 4d16e63

trpcData.procedureInput = normalize(rawInput);
}

sentryTransaction.setData('trpc', trpcData);
}

return next();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You might want to log something if the procedure actually fails? https://trpc.io/docs/server/middlewares#logging

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point, but for now I don't think we need to add this. People will still need to use this integration with a proper server framework integration like the Express integration for it to work, and those integrations will handle the errors.

We could at some point add an option that allows capturing of non-200 responses.

};
}