fix(amazonq): add metrics for flare/node resolution #5786
Conversation
We need some visibility on how prevalent failures are
Qodana Community for JVMIt seems all right 👌 No new problems were found according to the checks applied 💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked Contact Qodana teamContact us at [email protected]
|
| if (!nodeRuntime.isNullOrEmpty()) { | ||
| LOG.info { "Using node from $nodeRuntime " } | ||
|
|
||
| resolveNodeMetric(false, true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: is it possible to add parameter names?
| if (!validateFileHash(filePath, expectedHash)) { | ||
| it.success(false) | ||
|
|
||
| val exception = LspException("Hash mismatch after re-download for ${filePath.fileName}", LspException.ErrorCode.HASH_MISMATCH) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we run this through the util that removes username(scrubNames)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's path.fileName so should not have username because this is just the server version
| val resolveNodeMetric = { isBundled: Boolean, success: Boolean -> | ||
| Telemetry.languageserver.setup.use { | ||
| it.metadata("languageServerSetupStage", "resolveNode") | ||
| it.metadata("credentialStartUrl", getStartUrl(project)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
getStartUrl may be null if user has not login but I think it's fine
| if (!filePath.exists()) { | ||
| logger.info { "Downloading file: ${filePath.fileName}" } | ||
| saveFileFromUrl(url, filePath, ProgressManager.getInstance().progressIndicator) | ||
| recordDownload { saveFileFromUrl(url, filePath, ProgressManager.getInstance().progressIndicator) } | ||
| } | ||
| if (!validateFileHash(filePath, expectedHash)) { | ||
| logger.warn { "Hash mismatch for ${filePath.fileName}, re-downloading" } | ||
| filePath.deleteIfExists() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not related to this PR but it seems like we can download twice if the first downloaded one has hash mismatch due to antivirus changing content, but still acceptable
3 participants
We need some visibility on how prevalent failures are
License
I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.