🎨 New OEC:{traceback}-{timestamp} format for de-duplication purposes

[pcrespov]

What do these changes do?

What this PR changes

This PR introduces a new fingerprinting mechanism on the traceback for generating the osparc error code (OEC) as

OEC:{traceback}-{timestamp}

Instead of computing the OEC from the exception instance, which produced a different OEC for every occurrence, we now generate the OEC from a fingerprint of the exception’s type and relevant context. This change ensures that identical errors will consistently yield the same OEC across multiple occurrences.

What the OEC is used for

The OEC is included in the logs and passed to the front-end as a supportId (SEE OAS below), enabling users and support teams to trace and identify unexpected errors. It is also extracted by the logging system as log_oec and log_userid to associate errors with users and provide better observability across the platform.

Why we introduced this change

Previously, identical errors thrown in different instances (even with the same stack trace) would result in different OECs. This made it difficult to group and analyze recurring issues. With the new fingerprint-based approach, repeated occurrences of the same underlying error—possibly affecting multiple users—can now be identified and grouped under a single OEC. This improves our ability to detect and prioritize common issues, simplifies debugging, and enhances the efficiency of support workflows.

Related issue/s

• Closes Unique error fingerprint of OECs for deduplication purposes #7362
• part of Error page view should include SupportID and retry link button #7446

How to test

cd packages/common-library
make install-dev
pytest -vv tests/test_error_codes.py

Dev-ops

None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.65517% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.97%. Comparing base (772ef54) to head (2da9d9a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7364      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.66%   86.97%   +1.31%     
==========================================
  Files        1709     1356     -353     
  Lines       66355    56314   -10041     
  Branches     1124      613     -511     
==========================================
- Hits        56840    48977    -7863     
+ Misses       9195     7140    -2055     
+ Partials      320      197     -123     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	65.24% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
unittests	85.98% <89.65%> (+1.36%)	⬆️

Components	Coverage Δ
api	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_aws_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_dask_task_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_notifications_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_postgres_database	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_integration	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_library	72.32% <ø> (ø)
pkg_settings_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_simcore_sdk	85.46% <ø> (ø)
agent	96.46% <ø> (ø)
api_server	90.68% <ø> (ø)
autoscaling	96.08% <ø> (ø)
catalog	92.14% <ø> (ø)
clusters_keeper	99.24% <ø> (ø)
dask_sidecar	91.25% <ø> (ø)
datcore_adapter	98.11% <ø> (ø)
director	76.59% <ø> (-0.10%)	⬇️
director_v2	91.27% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
dynamic_scheduler	97.33% <ø> (ø)
dynamic_sidecar	90.11% <ø> (ø)
efs_guardian	89.79% <ø> (ø)
invitations	93.28% <ø> (ø)
payments	92.66% <ø> (ø)
resource_usage_tracker	89.12% <ø> (-0.11%)	⬇️
storage	84.42% <ø> (+0.15%)	⬆️
webclient	∅ <ø> (∅)
webserver	85.80% <ø> (+5.48%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 772ef54...2da9d9a. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sanderegg]

Very nice thanks!

[odeimaiz]

Nice 💅

[GitHK]

I would prefer to support both features as pointed out in my comment.

[bisgaard-itis]

Cool, thanks a lot. This is a topic I care a lot about, so I wrote some thoughts/suggestions. I think we can still improve a lot in the direction of being able to quickly locate and solve issues.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud