Add integration test for Open Telemetry about router HOT 6 CLOSED

I wrote a variant of https://docs.rs/tracing-test/0.1.0/tracing_test/ and then switched to it at a former company, I'd love to have a stab at this, and try to provide us with nice regression test primitives

from router.

that would be useful, I just saw a regression while debugging #180, where trace ids change in the middle of a query

from router.

#276 Is a first step towards integration testing, we now have a Tree like structure that represents the spans we're working on, here's a simple example:

this code:

async fn main() {
    let res = do_stuff().await;

    assert_eq!(res, 104);
}


#[tracing::instrument(name = "do_stuff", level = "info")]
async fn do_stuff() -> u8 {
    let number = do_stuff_2(42).await;

    tokio::task::spawn_blocking(|| async { tracing::warn!("in a separate context!") })
        .await
        .unwrap()
        .await;

    tracing::info!("here i am!");

    tracing::info!(number);

    number * 2
}

#[tracing::instrument(
    name = "do_stuff2",
    target = "my_crate::an_other_target",
    level = "info"
)]
async fn do_stuff_2(number: u8) -> u8 {
    tracing::info!("here i am again!");

    number + 10
}

outputs this structure:

{
  "id": 0,
  "target": "root",
  "records": [
    [],
    null
  ],
  "children": {
    "integration_tests::do_stuff": {
      "id": 1,
      "target": "integration_tests::do_stuff",
      "records": [
        [],
        {
          "name": "do_stuff",
          "target": "integration_tests",
          "level": "INFO",
          "module_path": "integration_tests",
          "fields": {
            "names": []
          }
        }
      ],
      "children": {
        "my_crate::an_other_target::do_stuff2": {
          "id": 2,
          "target": "my_crate::an_other_target::do_stuff2",
          "records": [
            [
              [
                "number",
                {
                  "Value": 42
                }
              ]
            ],
            {
              "name": "do_stuff2",
              "target": "my_crate::an_other_target",
              "level": "INFO",
              "module_path": "integration_tests",
              "fields": {
                "names": [
                  "number"
                ]
              }
            }
          ],
          "children": {}
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

The next steps for me would be:

• add span IDs or something to the keys, so several calls are displayed
• update our code with the latest ADR best practices (especially instrument(skip_all)) and generate snapshots based on this.
• generate snapshots
• add functions that allow us to assert the spans we get "kinda" match a shape, because we probably don't care what the span contents exactly look like, but we do care that a specific span has a specific field / value, and that spans are nested the right way.

This should cover most of our use cases, and open up for regression testing, and maybe let this bit of code live somewhere else, maybe a separate crate eventually?

from router.

I still need to flesh things out a bit, but this pr turns this:

    #[test_span(tokio::test)]
    async fn async_tracing_macro_works() {
        let res = do_stuff().await;

        assert_eq!(res, 104);

        let res2 = do_stuff().await;

        assert_eq!(res2, 104);

        let logs = get_logs();

        assert!(logs.contains_message("here i am!"));
        assert!(logs.contains_value("number", RecordedValue::Value(52.into())));
        assert!(logs.contains_message("in a separate context!"));

        insta::assert_json_snapshot!(logs);
        insta::assert_json_snapshot!(get_span());
    }

into logs and spans that are ready to be snapshotted 📸

Here's what it looks like on a basic router request.

Team how do we feel about this? Would this be a good first step, or is it a terrible idea and we should use an other approach?

from router.

looks great! Why are the logs separated? When looking at traces in jaeger, the logs are attached to spans, is it possible to do it here too?

from router.

Oh indeed, I think we can! Lemme check

EDIT: I d have to make sure log events always apply to the current span, but I can definitely test that!

from router.