Requirement is to export traces for requests that matches url pattern to zipkin from apps. I got to know that there are options in sleuth properties to exclude traces from exporting. But my case is the opposite of it. Include traces for exporting for only specified url patterns.
I was trying to have a custom httpSampler and mentioned my logic to export the trace based on url patterns. But it did not work as expected. Any samples available on the same, would really be helpful? Thanks much.
You have to use spring.sleuth.web.skipPattern
sample you will get here https://www.baeldung.com/tracing-services-with-zipkin
Related
We work on a product that is a series of components that could be installed on different CMSs and provide different services. We take a CMS agnostic approach and try to use the same code in all the CMSs as much as possible (we try to avoid using CMS API as much as we can).
Some part of the code needs to work with the current URL for some redirections so we use Request.Url.ToString() that is something that has worked fine in other environments but in Kentico instead of returning the current page we always get a reference to CMSPages/PortalTemplate.aspx with a querystring parameter aliasPath that holds the real URL. In addition to that, requesting the Template page using a browser gives you a 404 error.
Example:
Real URL (this works fine on a browser):
(1) https://www.customer.com/Membership/Questionnaire?Id=7207f9f9-7354-df11-88d9-005056837252
Request.Url.ToString() (this gives you a 404 error on a browser):
(2) https://www.customer.com/CMSPages/PortalTemplate.aspx?Id=7207f9f9-7354-df11-88d9-005056837252&aliaspath=/Membership/Questionnaire
I've noticed that the 404 error is thrown explicitly by the template code when invoked directly. Please see below code from Page_Init method of PortalTemplate.aspx.cs:
var resolvedTemplatePage = URLHelper.ResolveUrl(URLHelper.PortalTemplatePage);
if (RequestContext.RawURL.StartsWithCSafe(resolvedTemplatePage, true))
{
// Deny direct access to this page
RequestHelper.Respond404();
}
base.OnInit(e);
So, if I comment the above code out my redirection works fine ((2) resolves to (1)). I know it is not an elegant solution but since I cannot / don't want to use Kentico API is the only workaround I could find.
Note that I know that using Kentico API will solve the issue since I'm sure I will find an API method that will return the actual page. I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible.
Questions: Am I breaking something? Is there a better way of achieving what I trying to accomplish? Can you think on any good reason I shouldn't do what I'm doing (security, usability, etc)?
This is kind of a very broad question so I was not able to find any useful information on Kentico docs.
I'm testing all this on Kentico v8.2.50 which is the version one of my customers currently have.
Thanks in advance.
It's not really recommended to edit the source files of Kentico, as you may start to run into issues with future upgrades and also start to see some unexpected behaviour.
If you want to get the original URL sent to the server before Kentico's routing has done its work, you can use Page.Request.RawUrl. Using your above example, RawUrl would return a value of /Membership/Questionnaire?Id=7207f9f9-7354-df11-88d9-005056837252, whereas Url will return a Uri with a value of https://www.customer.com/CMSPages/PortalTemplate.aspx?Id=7207f9f9-7354-df11-88d9-005056837252&aliaspath=/Membership/Questionnaire (as you stated).
This should avoid needing to use the Kentico API and also avoid having to change a file that pretty much every request goes through when using the portal engine.
If you need to get the full URL to redirect to, you can use something like this:
var redirectUrl = Request.Url.GetLeftPart(UriPartial.Authority) + Request.RawUrl;
I am wondering if it is possible to configure an Azure Function App to accept a URI-path ID as is typically used in RESTful services, e.g. /api/foo/1, where the function is foo. I haven't been able to find documentation on this and the binding information that I have found suggests that this isn't possible (I don't see a way to map it). It doesn't "just work" with the typical HTTP trigger (which supports /api/foo?id=1). In that configuration one receives a 404 response, I'm guessing because it doesn't know to call the foo function with the ID suffix in the URI.
In case it matters, I'm using C# to write my function.
You are correct that URI parameters are not supported at this time. If you'd like, you can create a feature suggestion for this here in our repo. Thanks :)
I'm working with a production system that has a moderate amount of load. The amount of trace events and AI sends up is way too detailed, and makes it difficult to wade through logs later.
Each request to the server has information such as:
Message='Selected formatter='JsonMediaTypeFormatter', content-type='application/json; charset=utf-8'', Operation=DefaultContentNegotiator.Negotiate
and
Message='Action returned 'RZ.API.Support.Controllers.OperationActionResult`1[System.Collections.Generic.List`1[RZ.Entity.System.ClientMessage]]'', Operation=ReflectedHttpActionDescriptor.ExecuteAsync
There are maybe 30 entries for each request!
I just need the request type:
12/16/2015, 9:17:29 AM - REQUEST
GET /api/v1/user/messages
And the result code - as well as any custom stuff I do along the way.
So basically I want to trim most the traces except the request and the result (and any errors etc).
I have my eye on this bad boy in the AI config:
<Add Type="Microsoft.ApplicationInsights.Web.RequestTrackingTelemetryModule, Microsoft.AI.Web"/>
... but I cannot for the life of me see any doco on how to ask it to reduce the amount of stuff that is sent!
Any help is much appreciated.
Jordan.
P.S. All the extra logging has put us over the 15m a month plan, we had to upgrade!
RequestTrackingTelemetryModule does not do anything like you described. It adds requests, exceptions and dependencies collection. And in you example you are saying you see verbose WebApi traces being forwarded to ApplicationInsights. I assume you actually use Application Insights logging adapter.
Here you can read how WebApi traces can be forwarded to AI Version 1: http://apmtips.com/blog/2014/11/13/collect-asp-dot-net-mvc-web-api-traces-with-application-insights/
Here you can read how WebApi traces can be forwarded to AI Version 2:
http://apmtips.com/blog/2016/01/05/webapi-tracing-powered-by-ai-in-vs2015-update1/
Source code of logging adapters: https://github.com/Microsoft/ApplicationInsights-dotnet-logging
Documentation: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/app-insights-search-diagnostic-logs/#trace
So you have multiple options:
Do not use logging adapters
Change verbosity of WebApi tracing (read http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/testing-and-debugging/tracing-in-aspnet-web-api). I would prefer this one since you probably want to collect failures.
Remove WebApi tracing (as you did)
To answer my own question.
In my WebApiConfig file, I had:
config.EnableSystemDiagnosticsTracing();
Removing this line drastically cut down the clutter to what I was trying to achieve.
As of version 2.0 of the Application Insights SDKs, you can also limit the data sent by enabling sampling:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/app-insights-sampling/
if you add
<MaxTelemetryItemsPerSecond>5</MaxTelemetryItemsPerSecond>
to your ApplicationInsights.config, the sdk can limit how much goes out. The article above has a LOT more settings/configuration you can use to get other specific behavior, but the one above is the simplest.
As far as I know there are no configuration options available for the RequestTrackingTelemetryModule. You could just turn it off (by uninstalling the respective NuGet package or commenting the xml) and / or install different / additional telemetry modules.
See app-insights-configuration-with-applicationinsights-config for a list of modules and configuration options.
The Problem
I'm aware of the basic way to create a route/endpoint in ServiceStack using methods with names like "Get", "Post", "Any", etc inside a service but in the particular case that I'm trying to work with I have an existing service (which I can make an IService via inheritance) that can not be retrofitted w/ServiceStack attributes and currently uses DTOs for the requests and responses.
This service contains many functions that I do not want to manually mask (as this is a pass-through layer) but otherwise already conform to ServiceStack's requirements. What I'm wondering is if there's a way to manually create these routes in a way that would work like I've mocked up here. My existing functions and DTOs already contain the information I would need to define the routes so if this approach is possible it would only require me to enumerate them at initialization time as opposed to generating the services layer manually.
I noticed there is an extension method on Routes.Add that takes an Expression of type Expression> but I was not able to get that working because I believe the underlying code makes assumptions about the type of Expression generated (LambdaExpression vs MemberExpression or something like that). I also may be barking up the wrong tree if that's not the intended purpose of that function but I can not find documentation anywhere on how that variant is supposed to work.
Why?
I'm not sure this is necessary but to shed some light on why I want to do this as opposed to retrofitting my existing layers: The current code is also used outside of a web service context and is consumed by other code internally. Retrofitting ServiceStack in to this layer would make every place that consumes it require ServiceStack's assemblies and be aware of the web service which is a concern I want separated from the lower code. We were previously using MVC/WCF to accomplish this goal but we want some of the features available from ServiceStack.
the current architecture looks like this:
data -> DAL -> discrete business logic -> composition -> web service
Hopefully that makes enough sense and I'm not being obtuse. If you would like any more details about what I want to do or why I'll try to update this post as soon as possible.
Thanks!
You might use the fallback route in order to provide your own routing mechanism.
Then you get the request.Path property and route using your own mapping of path:Function which can be stored in a simple dictionary.
Anyway, if you go this path I don't see much benefit in using servicestack. It seems you just need an http handler that routes requests to existing services.
I currently have a webapp that consists of ~100 unique URLs + ~75 pages. The application uses Spring for security and Tomcat to host. My question is how do I prevent the following from happening:
http://localhost/myApp/myPage;rollback;
If that's not clear, what I am trying to prevent is my application from processing anything past myPage which would be found within a white list. If this isn't the proper way to go about this, what is?
EDIT
For the sake of completeness. I am using Spring MVC. What happens is the application passes the query string back to my application, processes the sql command (as it goes through the DAO). We have resolved this by encoding the information that comes back through to mitigate this as best we can for the time being.
You could add a custom filter to the spring security filter chain to look for semicolons and filter away the request before it hits the servlet code.
We have decided that the best course of action is to encode all data that is processed through the query string. Why this was not previously implemented is beyond me.