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

json: ser/de bytes as base64 strings not an array of bytes #2471

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

adriangb
Copy link

@adriangb adriangb commented Dec 25, 2024

I believe this is how the proto <-> json spec defines that binary data should be handled: https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/json/

I confirmed by exporting data from Python:

from opentelemetry.proto.collector.trace.v1.trace_service_pb2 import ExportTraceServiceRequest
from opentelemetry.proto.common.v1.common_pb2 import AnyValue, KeyValue
from opentelemetry.proto.resource.v1.resource_pb2 import Resource
from opentelemetry.proto.trace.v1.trace_pb2 import ResourceSpans
from google.protobuf.json_format import MessageToJson


export = ExportTraceServiceRequest(
    resource_spans=[
        ResourceSpans(
            resource=Resource(
                attributes=[
                    KeyValue(key="key", value=AnyValue(bytes_value=b"value"))
                ]
            )
        )
    ]
)

json = MessageToJson(export, use_integers_for_enums=True)

print(json)

with open("export.json", "w") as f:
    f.write(json)
{
  "resourceSpans": [
    {
      "resource": {
        "attributes": [
          {
            "key": "key",
            "value": {
              "bytesValue": "dmFsdWU="
            }
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

@adriangb adriangb requested a review from a team as a code owner December 25, 2024 03:47
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 25, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.1%. Comparing base (5b86b7f) to head (8905a39).
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #2471   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   77.1%   77.1%           
=====================================
  Files        124     124           
  Lines      23021   23021           
=====================================
  Hits       17771   17771           
  Misses      5250    5250           

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

@adriangb
Copy link
Author

I'm not familiar with the codebase so I took a guess as to where to apply the fix. I tried to add an integration test but I could not get a failure case to fail a test so I'm not sure if that's even in the right place either. Some pointers would be appreciated.

@adriangb
Copy link
Author

Hi @lalitb @TommyCpp would one of you mind reviewing or pinging an appropriate reviewer (sorry if this is not relevant to you, I just went off of git history)? Thanks

@@ -182,6 +189,17 @@ pub(crate) mod serializers {
let s: String = Deserialize::deserialize(deserializer)?;
s.parse::<i64>().map_err(de::Error::custom)
}

pub fn serialize_vec_u8_as_base64_string<S: Serializer>(v: &Vec<u8>, s: S) -> Result<S::Ok, S::Error> {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we planning to use these methods in the future, given that they are currently unused?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes but I'm not sure where or how. I'm having some trouble grokking the codebase because of all of the codegen.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see bytes <-> base64 conversion required outside of AnyValue::Value. The only other candidates could have been traceid, spanid byte arrays but they are encoded as hex-str as per the specs. So it should be safe to remove these methods for now, and bring back later if required.

"key": "data",
"value": {
"bytesValue": "gICA"
}
Copy link
Member

@lalitb lalitb Jan 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To make it complete, can we also add this entry in the json samples for logs and metrics?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure yes!

@lalitb lalitb added the integration tests Run integration tests label Jan 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integration tests Run integration tests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants