[inst-xhr/fetch] Network events incorrectly dropped #5314
Labels
bug
Something isn't working
pkg:instrumentation-fetch
pkg:instrumentation-xml-http-request
priority:p2
Bugs and spec inconsistencies which cause telemetry to be incomplete or incorrect
Comments
pichlermarc
added
priority:p2
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 11, 2025
Background: 1. For historical reasons, the perf/resource timing spec uses 0 as a special value to denote when some timing information is either not applicable (e.g. no redirect occured) or not available (when producing an opaque resource timing object for CORS resources). 2. However, in some limited cases, 0 can also be a legitimate value for these timing events. Note that this is rare in real life – these fields are high-res performance timestamp relative to the performance time-origin, which is typically the navigation event for the initial page load. For a _resource_ timing to have a 0 timestamp, it would have to be initiated simultaneously with page load, it is unclear if this can actually happen IRL. Reportedly (open-telemetry#1769), at one point this was observed in some browsers during automated tests where things happen very fast and the browser artifically supress the timing resolution. It was unclear if the report was about the navigation timing entry or resource timing entries. It is also unclear if these utilities are intended for anything other than the internal fetch/XHR instrumentation, but they are public API, so if someone uses these functions on the initial page navigation event, then it is possible for the function to see legitimate 0-value inputs. 3. When creating span events, we do not use the timeOrigin-relative perf timestamps as-is. Rather, we convert them back to the UNIX epoch timestamps. When this conversion is applied to those 0 timestamps, it creates nonsensical/misleading events that are quite difficult to distinguish for downstream consumers. It would be nice if the W3C specs would have left the N/A values as `undefined`, but that's not the world we live in and so we have to work with what we've got. History: 1. Initially, the code ignored 0-value timestamps. 2. open-telemetry#1769 identified cases of valid 0-value timestamps and removed the check. 3. This causes the other category of bugs where we created the nonsensical events (open-telemetry#2457, open-telemetry#3848, open-telemetry#4478) 4. open-telemetry#3897 added a special-case for `secureConnectionStart` by way of tapping into auxiliary metadata 5. That appoach cannot be generalized for the other cases, so open-telemetry#4486 added some rather convoluted checks. 6. As part of refactoring the tests to use service workers, a new bug open-telemetry#5314 was identified. Presumably, the patch in open-telemetry#4486 was writen that way (as opposed to just checking for 0) to avoid breaking open-telemetry#1769, but I suspect it ends up breaking some of those use cases anyway. Options: 1. Keep the patch from open-telemetry#4486 largely as-is but change the reference time from `fetchStart` to `startTime`. 2. Revert to the very original intent of the code and drop everything with 0-values. 3. This commit attempts a compromise position, when `startTime === 0` (which probably means we are called with the initial navigation event), 0-values are plausibly valid so we include them by default, but in any other cases (`startTime > 0`), legitimate 0-values should not be possible so we drop them by default. Part of the issue here is that it's unclear how these utilities are being used since they are public APIs. In core, these functions are only called by the fetch/xhr instrumentation with resource timing entries, where legitimate 0-value seems extremely unlikely. In my opinion, the rarity of legitimate 0-value timing values in the real world (recall that it doesn't just mean something happened very fast, but something happened very fast _at the same instant that the page loaded_) should yield to the conflicting interst (to avoid non-sensical events that are difficult to process downstream) here, especially when it appears that the only observed cases are from automated testsing. Personally I would be in favor of the stronger position (2), but attempted to strike a balance here to keep things useful the other cases. In open-telemetry#2457, @johnbley argued: > I think that for this piece of tech, our telemetry should report > whatever the browser says with minimal processing, and let > downstream/backend/easier-to-modify components deal with > normalization/truncation/processing if desired (e.g., throwing > away absurd times like "that page took 6 years or -5 hours to > load", or declaring that "no redirects happened so the redirect > timing is not 0 but non-existent"). Does that not work in your > world for some reason? I could see this perspective if the "minimal processing" means that we sends the 0-values to the backends as 0s. It's still unfortunate but at least it would be easy to write a query/filter to process them away. However, given we are actively normalizes the 0-values into the absolute epoch timestamp of `performance.timeOrigin`, I think this becomes actively hostile to backend/downstream processing, as it turns a relatively clear signal (value=0) into something that would require stateful machinary to reverse engineer (infer the timeOrigin from a trace), or imperfect huristics (ignore things that seems to take way too long). It also takes up bytesize/bandwidth to transmit in the vast majority of cases where it would be actively unhelpful. Instead, I'd argue it creates way less harm to drop the 0-values. When a 0-value is expected but not sent, it may skew the distrubtion on some aggregrate metrics slightly (e.g. making "average time for SSL handshake" appears large), but probably nothing would break. If we are expecting backends to do work to normalize data anyway, then IMO it would also be way easier for them to notice the missing items and insert it back than the other way around. Fixes open-telemetry#3199 Fixes open-telemetry#5314 See also open-telemetry#1769, open-telemetry#2457, open-telemetry#3848, open-telemetry#3879, open-telemetry#4478, open-telemetry#4486
8 tasks
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 11, 2025
Background: 1. For historical reasons, the perf/resource timing spec uses 0 as a special value to denote when some timing information is either not applicable (e.g. no redirect occured) or not available (when producing an opaque resource timing object for CORS resources). 2. However, in some limited cases, 0 can also be a legitimate value for these timing events. Note that this is rare in real life – these fields are high-res performance timestamp relative to the performance time-origin, which is typically the navigation event for the initial page load. For a _resource_ timing to have a 0 timestamp, it would have to be initiated simultaneously with page load, it is unclear if this can actually happen IRL. Reportedly (open-telemetry#1769), at one point this was observed in some browsers during automated tests where things happen very fast and the browser artifically supress the timing resolution. It was unclear if the report was about the navigation timing entry or resource timing entries. It is also unclear if these utilities are intended for anything other than the internal fetch/XHR instrumentation, but they are public API, so if someone uses these functions on the initial page navigation event, then it is possible for the function to see legitimate 0-value inputs. 3. When creating span events, we do not use the timeOrigin-relative perf timestamps as-is. Rather, we convert them back to the UNIX epoch timestamps. When this conversion is applied to those 0 timestamps, it creates nonsensical/misleading events that are quite difficult to distinguish for downstream consumers. It would be nice if the W3C specs would have left the N/A values as `undefined`, but that's not the world we live in and so we have to work with what we've got. History: 1. Initially, the code ignored 0-value timestamps. 2. open-telemetry#1769 identified cases of valid 0-value timestamps and removed the check. 3. This causes the other category of bugs where we created the nonsensical events (open-telemetry#2457, open-telemetry#3848, open-telemetry#4478) 4. open-telemetry#3897 added a special-case for `secureConnectionStart` by way of tapping into auxiliary metadata 5. That appoach cannot be generalized for the other cases, so open-telemetry#4486 added some rather convoluted checks. 6. As part of refactoring the tests to use service workers, a new bug open-telemetry#5314 was identified. Presumably, the patch in open-telemetry#4486 was writen that way (as opposed to just checking for 0) to avoid breaking open-telemetry#1769, but I suspect it ends up breaking some of those use cases anyway. Options: 1. Keep the patch from open-telemetry#4486 largely as-is but change the reference time from `fetchStart` to `startTime`. 2. Revert to the very original intent of the code and drop everything with 0-values. 3. This commit attempts a compromise position, when `startTime === 0` (which probably means we are called with the initial navigation event), 0-values are plausibly valid so we include them by default, but in any other cases (`startTime > 0`), legitimate 0-values should not be possible so we drop them by default. Part of the issue here is that it's unclear how these utilities are being used since they are public APIs. In core, these functions are only called by the fetch/xhr instrumentation with resource timing entries, where legitimate 0-value seems extremely unlikely. In my opinion, the rarity of legitimate 0-value timing values in the real world (recall that it doesn't just mean something happened very fast, but something happened very fast _at the same instant that the page loaded_) should yield to the conflicting interst (to avoid non-sensical events that are difficult to process downstream) here, especially when it appears that the only observed cases are from automated testsing. Personally I would be in favor of the stronger position (2), but attempted to strike a balance here to keep things useful the other cases. In open-telemetry#2457, @johnbley argued: > I think that for this piece of tech, our telemetry should report > whatever the browser says with minimal processing, and let > downstream/backend/easier-to-modify components deal with > normalization/truncation/processing if desired (e.g., throwing > away absurd times like "that page took 6 years or -5 hours to > load", or declaring that "no redirects happened so the redirect > timing is not 0 but non-existent"). Does that not work in your > world for some reason? I could see this perspective if the "minimal processing" means that we sends the 0-values to the backends as 0s. It's still unfortunate but at least it would be easy to write a query/filter to process them away. However, given we are actively normalizes the 0-values into the absolute epoch timestamp of `performance.timeOrigin`, I think this becomes actively hostile to backend/downstream processing, as it turns a relatively clear signal (value=0) into something that would require stateful machinary to reverse engineer (infer the timeOrigin from a trace), or imperfect huristics (ignore things that seems to take way too long). It also takes up bytesize/bandwidth to transmit in the vast majority of cases where it would be actively unhelpful. Instead, I'd argue it creates way less harm to drop the 0-values. When a 0-value is expected but not sent, it may skew the distrubtion on some aggregrate metrics slightly (e.g. making "average time for SSL handshake" appears large), but probably nothing would break. If we are expecting backends to do work to normalize data anyway, then IMO it would also be way easier for them to notice the missing items and insert it back than the other way around. Fixes open-telemetry#3199 Fixes open-telemetry#5314 See also open-telemetry#1769, open-telemetry#2457, open-telemetry#3848, open-telemetry#3879, open-telemetry#4478, open-telemetry#4486
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 13, 2025
Without this, the next set of test fails intermittently
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2025
Without this, the next set of test fails intermittently
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2025
Background: 1. For historical reasons, the perf/resource timing spec uses 0 as a special value to denote when some timing information is either not applicable (e.g. no redirect occured) or not available (when producing an opaque resource timing object for CORS resources). 2. However, in some limited cases, 0 can also be a legitimate value for these timing events. Note that this is rare in real life – these fields are high-res performance timestamp relative to the performance time-origin, which is typically the navigation event for the initial page load. For a _resource_ timing to have a 0 timestamp, it would have to be initiated simultaneously with page load, it is unclear if this can actually happen IRL. Reportedly (open-telemetry#1769), at one point this was observed in some browsers during automated tests where things happen very fast and the browser artifically supress the timing resolution. It was unclear if the report was about the navigation timing entry or resource timing entries. It is also unclear if these utilities are intended for anything other than the internal fetch/XHR instrumentation, but they are public API, so if someone uses these functions on the initial page navigation event, then it is possible for the function to see legitimate 0-value inputs. 3. When creating span events, we do not use the timeOrigin-relative perf timestamps as-is. Rather, we convert them back to the UNIX epoch timestamps. When this conversion is applied to those 0 timestamps, it creates nonsensical/misleading events that are quite difficult to distinguish for downstream consumers. It would be nice if the W3C specs would have left the N/A values as `undefined`, but that's not the world we live in and so we have to work with what we've got. History: 1. Initially, the code ignored 0-value timestamps. 2. open-telemetry#1769 identified cases of valid 0-value timestamps and removed the check. 3. This causes the other category of bugs where we created the nonsensical events (open-telemetry#2457, open-telemetry#3848, open-telemetry#4478) 4. open-telemetry#3897 added a special-case for `secureConnectionStart` by way of tapping into auxiliary metadata 5. That appoach cannot be generalized for the other cases, so open-telemetry#4486 added some rather convoluted checks. 6. As part of refactoring the tests to use service workers, a new bug open-telemetry#5314 was identified. Presumably, the patch in open-telemetry#4486 was writen that way (as opposed to just checking for 0) to avoid breaking open-telemetry#1769, but I suspect it ends up breaking some of those use cases anyway. Options: 1. Keep the patch from open-telemetry#4486 largely as-is but change the reference time from `fetchStart` to `startTime`. 2. Revert to the very original intent of the code and drop everything with 0-values. 3. This commit attempts a compromise position, when `startTime === 0` (which probably means we are called with the initial navigation event), 0-values are plausibly valid so we include them by default, but in any other cases (`startTime > 0`), legitimate 0-values should not be possible so we drop them by default. Part of the issue here is that it's unclear how these utilities are being used since they are public APIs. In core, these functions are only called by the fetch/xhr instrumentation with resource timing entries, where legitimate 0-value seems extremely unlikely. In my opinion, the rarity of legitimate 0-value timing values in the real world (recall that it doesn't just mean something happened very fast, but something happened very fast _at the same instant that the page loaded_) should yield to the conflicting interst (to avoid non-sensical events that are difficult to process downstream) here, especially when it appears that the only observed cases are from automated testsing. Personally I would be in favor of the stronger position (2), but attempted to strike a balance here to keep things useful the other cases. In open-telemetry#2457, @johnbley argued: > I think that for this piece of tech, our telemetry should report > whatever the browser says with minimal processing, and let > downstream/backend/easier-to-modify components deal with > normalization/truncation/processing if desired (e.g., throwing > away absurd times like "that page took 6 years or -5 hours to > load", or declaring that "no redirects happened so the redirect > timing is not 0 but non-existent"). Does that not work in your > world for some reason? I could see this perspective if the "minimal processing" means that we sends the 0-values to the backends as 0s. It's still unfortunate but at least it would be easy to write a query/filter to process them away. However, given we are actively normalizes the 0-values into the absolute epoch timestamp of `performance.timeOrigin`, I think this becomes actively hostile to backend/downstream processing, as it turns a relatively clear signal (value=0) into something that would require stateful machinary to reverse engineer (infer the timeOrigin from a trace), or imperfect huristics (ignore things that seems to take way too long). It also takes up bytesize/bandwidth to transmit in the vast majority of cases where it would be actively unhelpful. Instead, I'd argue it creates way less harm to drop the 0-values. When a 0-value is expected but not sent, it may skew the distrubtion on some aggregrate metrics slightly (e.g. making "average time for SSL handshake" appears large), but probably nothing would break. If we are expecting backends to do work to normalize data anyway, then IMO it would also be way easier for them to notice the missing items and insert it back than the other way around. Fixes open-telemetry#3199 Fixes open-telemetry#5314 See also open-telemetry#1769, open-telemetry#2457, open-telemetry#3848, open-telemetry#3879, open-telemetry#4478, open-telemetry#4486
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2025
Without this, the next set of test fails intermittently
chancancode
added a commit
to tildeio/opentelemetry-js
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2025
Without this, the next set of test fails intermittently
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
What happened?
Steps to Reproduce
fetch()request that is fulfilled by the service worker{ "name": "http://localhost:9876/api/status.json", "entryType": "resource", "startTime": 2171.4000000953674, "duration": 2.0999999046325684, "initiatorType": "fetch", "deliveryType": "cache", "nextHopProtocol": "", "renderBlockingStatus": "non-blocking", "workerStart": 2171.600000143051, "redirectStart": 0, "redirectEnd": 0, "fetchStart": 2171.7000000476837, "domainLookupStart": 2171.7000000476837, "domainLookupEnd": 2171.7000000476837, "connectStart": 2171.7000000476837, "secureConnectionStart": 0, "connectEnd": 2171.7000000476837, "requestStart": 2171.600000143051, "responseStart": 2173.4000000953674, "firstInterimResponseStart": 2173.4000000953674, "responseEnd": 2173.5, "transferSize": 0, "encodedBodySize": 11, "decodedBodySize": 11, "responseStatus": 200, "serverTiming": [] }Expected Result
The instrumentation produces a span with the usual network events. At present, that would be these 8 events:
fetchStartdomainLookupStartdomainLookupEndconnectStartconnectEndrequestStartresponseStartresponseEnd(I would advocate that
workerStart, if present, should be included as well, but that's a different issue)Actual Result
The instrumentation produces a span with these 7 events:
fetchStartdomainLookupStartdomainLookupEndconnectStartconnectEndresponseStartresponseEndNote that
requestStartis missing.Additional Details
This is a direct result of #4486, which is intended to be a fix for #4478:
The wording implies/assumes that:
fetchStartcan be safely assumed to be the "time origin" of the resource timings(1) is definitely a bug worth fixing, but (2) didn't turn out to be correct. As shown in the example above, when a worker is involved,
requestStart===workerStart<fetchStart(in my version of Chrome at least – but IMO any instances of real world occurrences is sufficient to demonstrate the problem with the current code). Thus, therequestStartnetwork event ends up getting dropped even though it is perfectly valid.I found this issue with service worker, but I think the assumption is fundamentally flawed here, and there may be other cases where this results in the same bug.
If we want to check against a "time origin" value,
startTimewould be the correct one to check.However, we could probably just checking for
timingValue === 0for the purpose of skipping events. 0 is defined in the resource timing spec as a special default value when the information is not available, so it's not like that's a random coincidence.@dyladan pointed out 0 could be a valid timing for some of these values, so perhaps that's why we didn't go with that approach. However, I'm not sure if that's the case for our special use case here: these values are high-res performance timestamps relative to
performance.timeOrigin, which is typically the navigation event for the initial page load. It doesn't seem possible for a fetch/xhr event to happen at exactly the same instant that the page began to load, though admittedly I haven't confirmed that with the spec.OpenTelemetry Setup Code
No response
package.json
No response
Relevant log output
No response
Operating System and Version
No response
Runtime and Version
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: