Closed Bug 719943 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago
new field in json metadata needs exposure in the UI
the json metadata has a new field called "JsonStackTrace". If present, it needs to be shown in the GUI when displaying an individual crash report.
It's apparently called "JavaStackTrace". I have a patch, waiting on sample data from bug 701002 to test.
Assignee: nobody → laura
Depends on: 701002
Target Milestone: --- → 2.4.1
https://github.com/lauraxt/socorro/commit/d6b7dd9485824b50dbc8391c9af86ec03a57e7d8 is the patch. When bug 701002 lands I'll put in a pull request.
Commit pushed to https://github.com/mozilla/socorro https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/commit/43baad1e347f1f640d205daa5ef75e4bff9ffaa4 Merge pull request #297 from lauraxt/719943 Fixes bug 719943
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
thx :brandonsavage ... my mistake. QA verfied on stage. Flash versions are displayed. The only caveat is that unspecified versions (browser crashes) display the flash version as "[blank]."
Please ignore comment 5. I mark the wrong bug verified.
(In reply to Matt Brandt [:mbrandt] from comment #6) > Please ignore comment 5. I mark the wrong bug verified. And it seems you didn't actually get around to verifying this one, as it looks a lot like it doesn't work in production now. Does that field actually arrive in the file this code looks at? Here are examples of reports that should have it: bp-076df6d0-b8f4-4da9-98af-579442120201 bp-e8820616-1462-49b6-9784-e99a32120201 bp-7b9186a6-997f-467b-ae40-cf5f52120201 bp-aadbcc9c-1dbd-475f-9ce2-b5cc02120201
:kairo - no I did not verify this bug prior to the push to production. Bumping to reopened
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:email@example.com) from comment #7) > (In reply to Matt Brandt [:mbrandt] from comment #6) > > Please ignore comment 5. I mark the wrong bug verified. > > And it seems you didn't actually get around to verifying this one, as it > looks a lot like it doesn't work in production now. > > Does that field actually arrive in the file this code looks at? > Here are examples of reports that should have it: > bp-076df6d0-b8f4-4da9-98af-579442120201 > bp-e8820616-1462-49b6-9784-e99a32120201 > bp-7b9186a6-997f-467b-ae40-cf5f52120201 > bp-aadbcc9c-1dbd-475f-9ce2-b5cc02120201 It was there in the .json on the first one I checked. I should be able to figure this out and patch it tomorrow, or somebody else can do it tonight.
(In reply to Laura Thomson :laura from comment #9) > It was there in the .json on the first one I checked. I should be able to > figure this out and patch it tomorrow, or somebody else can do it tonight. It's definitely there in the raw dump. Maybe the UI is looking at the processed dump and that's missing it? I'm just guessing...
The UI looks at the processed dump, and this field is in the raw dump only. This is my error: I had thought from my discussions with Lars that it would be passed through. Since we have no end-to-end test environment, rhelmer and I agreed to test this in stage against the processed data...and then I forgot and QA did too. I'll see if I can figure out a way to get at the raw dump from the UI: we need this for a related 2.4.2 bug anyway, bug 669108
Did some digging. In all other cases where we need data from the raw json, the processor stores it in PostgreSQL or writes it into the processed json. I can rewrite the UI to also load the raw json. It's a non trivial change and also incurs a performance penalty for the extra retrieval from HBase and extra parsing. Pro: It will be really easy to add more things from the raw json to the UI in future Con: It's inconsistent with what we currently have, and I'm slightly concerned about introducing a third way of doing things - loading data for an individual report already hits PG for most data and HBase for the processed JSON. Thoughts? (lars? rhelmer?)
PS this might end up in 18.104.22.168 but I suspect 2.4.2
Target Milestone: 2.4.1 → 2.4.2
laura, if there is any formatting or preprocessing I can do on the browser side to making json processing easier, just let me know.
pull request: https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/pull/330
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/socorro https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/commit/465abde536ed22c0094ffa8bbe848851c1bf9674 Merge pull request #330 from lauraxt/719943v2 Fixes bug 719943 properly, loads the JavaStackTrace from the raw JSON
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago → 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
To make testing easier, I took this crash from production: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/9a8799e3-2c94-40a1-af83-807422120206 Then submitted it to crash-reports-dev: https://crash-stats-dev.allizom.org/report/index/95f1ed58-6ee8-4d28-8d5a-bbee22120208
QA verified on dev. Thank you :rhelmer for making this simple to verify (comment 18).
Attachment #592859 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Need this pushed to XUL as well (12 b2; 10.3 ESR)
(In reply to Naoki Hirata :nhirata from comment #20) > Need this pushed to XUL as well (12 b2; 10.3 ESR) This bug is tracking server side changes - why should it be tracked for Firefox?
10 years ago
I understood it as a flag for firefox/fennec versioning, not just firefox desktop. Perhaps it's my misunderstanding. AFAIK, ESR10 will continue to be released for tablets until Native Fennec for tablets are ready.
(In reply to Naoki Hirata :nhirata from comment #22) > I understood it as a flag for firefox/fennec versioning, not just firefox > desktop. > Perhaps it's my misunderstanding. No change that was done here is specific to any release train of Firefox or Fennec, and no client code was changed, this is all server-side in Socorro and doesn't care what product the reports are coming in for, as long as they have the data to be exposed. > AFAIK, ESR10 will continue to be released for tablets until Native Fennec > for tablets are ready. Sure, but that doesn't influence this bug at all. If it sends Java Stack Trace fields, they will be shown, as long as it's not, there's nothing for Socorro to show.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.