chore: improve config for sentry to withstand spans #723
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@rogaldh is attempting to deploy a commit to the Solana Foundation Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Changes requested ❌
Reviewed everything up to a8ce065 in 2 minutes and 37 seconds. Click for details.
- Reviewed
157lines of code in5files - Skipped
1files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
7draft comments. View those below. - Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. instrumentation-client.ts:7
- Draft comment:
Good refactoring—centralizing Sentry configuration via createSentryConfig(). - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%None
2. package.json:40
- Draft comment:
Addition of @sentry/core dependency looks appropriate. Ensure its version is fully compatible with @sentry/nextjs. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%None
3. sentry.edge.config.ts:8
- Draft comment:
Consistently using createSentryConfig with 'edge' context. Consider if context-specific overrides are needed in the future. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%None
4. sentry.server.config.ts:7
- Draft comment:
Consistently using createSentryConfig with 'server' context. Looks good. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%None
5. sentry/config.ts:21
- Draft comment:
The check for '/api/ping' (lines 22-23) is redundant since the subsequent check for '/api/' (lines 27-28) already excludes all API endpoints. If intentional for clarity, consider adding a comment. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While technically correct that /api/ping would be caught by /api/, having the specific check first with its own comment about health checks provides better clarity and maintainability. The redundancy appears intentional for documentation purposes. The comment suggests adding another comment, which goes against our rules about purely informative suggestions. The redundancy could be a deliberate pattern for future extensibility where ping endpoints might need different handling. Also, explicit checks for health endpoints are a common pattern. The intentional redundancy serves documentation and maintainability purposes, and the comment's suggestion to add more documentation isn't actionable enough. Delete the comment as it points out a technically true but intentionally redundant pattern that serves code clarity, and its suggestion is purely informational.
6. sentry/config.ts:12
- Draft comment:
sampleRate is now set to 0.1 (doubling the previous rate of 0.05). Verify that this change aligns with your intended behavior given the PR description. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%The comment is asking the PR author to verify their intention, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. It also references the PR description, which is not allowed.
7. sentry/config.ts:33
- Draft comment:
The production tracesSampler returns 0.0005, a significant drop from the previous 0.05. Confirm this aggressive reduction in transaction sampling is intentional to mitigate span volume. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment looked like it was already resolved.
Workflow ID: wflow_06oxYGA3bajFeL7i
You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.
jacobcreech
approved these changes
Oct 16, 2025
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Alter configuration for Sentry. Increase the sample rate for Transactions and decrease it for Issues.
Type of change
Screenshots
n/a
Testing
n/a
Related Issues
n/a
Checklist
- [ ] I have included screenshots for protocol screens (if applicable)- [ ] For security-related features, I have included links to related informationImportant
Centralizes Sentry configuration with
createSentryConfig, adjusting sampling rates and updating initialization files.createSentryConfiginsentry/config.ts.sampleRateto 0.1 andtracesSamplerto reduce span sampling in production.instrumentation-client.ts,sentry.edge.config.ts, andsentry.server.config.tsto usecreateSentryConfig.@sentry/coretopackage.jsondependencies.This description was created by
for a8ce065. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.