fix(core): Add a PromiseBuffer for incoming events on the client #18120
+107
−12
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JPeer264
force-pushed
the
jp/memory-leak
branch
2 times, most recently
from
619a016 to
1695dd4
Compare
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| processEvent(event: Event): Event | null | PromiseLike<Event | null> { | ||
| return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(() => resolve(event), 1)); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bug: Async Test Integration Missing Event Processor Setup
The AsyncTestIntegration defines a processEvent method but lacks a setupOnce or setup method to register it as an event processor. Without registration, the async processEvent won't execute, causing tests using this integration to pass incorrectly without actually exercising the promise buffer's async event handling logic.
JPeer264
force-pushed
the
jp/memory-leak
branch
from
1695dd4 to
2ee14b4
Compare
Contributor
size-limit report 📦
|
Contributor
node-overhead report 🧳Note: This is a synthetic benchmark with a minimal express app and does not necessarily reflect the real-world performance impact in an application.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Problem
Previously, the client would process all incoming events without any limit, which could lead to unbounded growth of pending events/promises in memory. This could cause performance issues and memory pressure in high-throughput scenarios. This occurs when two conditions are met:
processEventare added (e.g.ContextLines, which is a defaultIntegration)Sentry.captureException, are called synchronouslySolution
This PR adds a
PromiseBufferto theClientclass to limit the number of concurrent event processing operations._promiseBufferin theClientclass that limits concurrent event processingDEFAULT_TRANSPORT_BUFFER_SIZE(64) but can be configured viatransportOptions.bufferSizequeue_overflowreason_process()method to:Special 👀 on
transportOptions.bufferSize: Not sure if this is the best technique, but IMO both should have the same size - because if it wouldn't it would be capped at a later stage (asking myself if the transport still needs the promise buffer - as we have it now way earlier in place)_processtakes now aDataCategory. At the time of the process the event type is almost unknown. Not sure if I assumed the categories correctly there, or if there is another technique of getting the type (edit: a comment by Cursor helped a little and I added a helper function)recordDroppedEventis now printing it one after each other - theoretically we can count all occurences and print the count on it. I decided against this one, since it would delay the user feedback - this can be challenged though