feat: add tracing to proto validation

[miparnisari]

Description

add tracing to proto validation

Testing

Before	After

References

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 84.21053% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.78%. Comparing base (c3eea34) to head (b7a0872).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...iddleware/interceptorwrapper/interceptorwrapper.go	80.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (74.78%) is below the target coverage (75.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2950      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.82%   74.78%   +0.96%     
==========================================
  Files         494      495       +1     
  Lines       60623    60638      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits        44750    45343     +593     
+ Misses      12698    12132     -566     
+ Partials     3175     3163      -12     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[miparnisari]

maybe i should rename the package...

[tstirrat15]

We also might be able to get rid of this package? I haven't actually looked into it

[tstirrat15]

See comment

[tstirrat15]

We also might be able to get rid of this package? I haven't actually looked into it

[tstirrat15]

I don't think folding together the validation logic makes sense to me. If the goal is just "add spans around an interceptor," I'd rather write a function that takes an interceptor and a name and returns a new interceptor that adds spans with that name around the provided interceptor, and then we can throw it around the protovalidate interceptor. I think there's a good chance that we can get rid of this handwritten logic altogether using CEL rules that reference multiple fields and I'd rather not tie them together.

[miparnisari]

I don't think folding together the validation logic makes sense to me.

why not? the responsibilties are the same: validate the incoming request.

the split can cause bugs. Look at the existing codebase today, in particular the Watch service: https://github.com/authzed/spicedb/blob/main/internal/services/v1/watch.go#L39. Notice something odd? if there were a handwritten validation defined, this code is buggy, it's not running it.

I'd rather write a function that takes an interceptor and a name and returns a new interceptor that adds spans with that name around the provided interceptor,

agree, i want to do this and put a span around EVERY interceptor because there are so many and i don't know where the time is being spent. but: separate PR

think there's a good chance that we can get rid of this handwritten logic altogether using CEL rules that reference multiple fields and I'd rather not tie them together.

agree, but: separate PR

[miparnisari]

@tstirrat15 is the idea to wrap more interceptors with this?

[tstirrat15]

That's the idea - it's here if we want it.

[tstirrat15]

Maria approved my edits; I'm approving the PR.