Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tech Spec "Track schema validation errors and create OC issues" #20987

Closed
evantahler opened this issue Jan 3, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Tech Spec "Track schema validation errors and create OC issues" #20987

evantahler opened this issue Jan 3, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@evantahler
Copy link
Contributor

evantahler commented Jan 3, 2023

  1. Log messages today in the platform about Records not matching Schema become Sentry or Data Dog Errors
  2. These errors probably become OC issues. Who is notified and what is the priority? Keep in mind that maybe there is no user impact as Normalization might swallow the error

Questions:

  • Should we use Sentry?
  • Is this the same sentry project?
  • What priority are the OC issues?
  • Do we need new Github tags for workflows?
  • Is there nuance between missing properties vs additional properties? Are they equally bad?
@evantahler
Copy link
Contributor Author

Update:

This work might be getting done already as part of column selection

https://airbytehq-team.slack.com/archives/C046V1Z2YJH/p1674682714717139

@erohmensing
Copy link
Contributor

As it turns out, we already do track schema validation errors in datadog! #13393 - Will look into talking to someone who knows how best to consume this info in datadog

@evantahler looking into the link there, it looks similar but ultimately not the same - you can see where we currently track validation errors, vs where we want to track unexpected field names here. IMO they could be handled similarly (though they might have different priorities, as it seems like maybe the latter was causing some major issues?). I think it makes sense to add this to the scope?

@evantahler
Copy link
Contributor Author

@evantahler looking into the link there, it looks similar but ultimately not the same - you can see where we currently track validation errors, vs where we want to track unexpected field names here. IMO they could be handled similarly (though they might have different priorities, as it seems like maybe the latter was causing some major issues?). I think it makes sense to add this to the scope?

I think that does make sense! I think we would want to treat both "a required property is missing" and "a property that wasn't in the spec has appeared" in the same way - This record didn't match the spec, therefore this is a connector bug.

@erohmensing
Copy link
Contributor

Going to close this for now - we have a lot of new information for db and api sources to work on, and they can choose to prioritize it how they so choose

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants