-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Feature request: Allow specifying a webhook to receive Plugin errors #124
Comments
Should also use sentry to improve observability, don't rely only on logs |
For context, this is important for us internally--currently workflow-kit protocols do capture exceptions in Sentry but they all go into the same bucket; I added a PR this morning to move them to separate buckets with the same tag. I think we should do the same thing for exceptions that occur during plugin handling (again, for internal use). |
How do you see this being implemented? An |
say "error ouroboros" five times fast |
I grew up in Florida, I can't say it one time fast. |
this is how I was thinking about it because it's simple and it means we can shoot the webhook requests out with celery, meaning we get redelivery for free
this is a cool idea, and some advanced users might opt for it... but then they're responsible for redelivery themselves, and that might be a step backwards |
Does this imply you would send the error based on the return of the event gRPC method (in our case from home-app) rather than in the |
Yes, I would expect to add async tasks for this
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 3:21 PM, Andrew Duane < ***@***.*** > wrote:
>
>
> it means we can shoot the webhook requests out with celery, meaning we get
> redelivery for free
>
>
Does this imply you would send the error based on the return of the event
gRPC method (in our case from home-app) rather than in the except in the
plugin runner? Or do you think we would "teach" the plugin runner how to
queue celery tasks? I do think we need to support async tasks in plugins,
for the record, not sure if you intended to introduce that with this or
not.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (
#124 (comment)
) , or unsubscribe (
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAPCX5ZHYJFT5MVSFZBGETZ23HT7AVCNFSM6AAAAABPVLLJNOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMBVHA3DONZQGI
).
You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Message ID: <canvas-medical/canvas-plugins/issues/124/2405867702
@ github. com>
--
Disclaimer: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of any information contained herein is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the Security Officer
***@***.***>, and destroy the original transmission
and any attachments without reading or saving.
|
Sounds great! |
In working with Reagan yesterday and talking to Hines just now I think it would be very helpful for production plugin users to be able to receive errors reports for their plugins at a webhook URL of their choosing. This might serve a different purpose than the syslog logging we've talked about but it would be structured data (JSON) instead of text tracebacks, and so it may be worth implementing for that reason (maybe higher priority than the syslog logging even?)
Curious as to your thoughts...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: