fix(debugger): redact nullable wrappers of configured types#8642
Open
dudikeleti wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
fix(debugger): redact nullable wrappers of configured types#8642dudikeleti wants to merge 1 commit into
dudikeleti wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5bd78c8852
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Comment on lines
+252
to
+253
| var effectiveType = Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(type) ?? type; | ||
| return _redactedTypesCache.GetOrAdd(effectiveType, CheckForRedactedType); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a user configures DD_DYNAMIC_INSTRUMENTATION_REDACTED_TYPES=System.Nullable* (or an exact nullable wrapper type name), nullable values used to match because CheckForRedactedType inspected the wrapper's FullName. After always passing only the underlying type into the cache/check, those existing wrapper-specific wildcard rules never see System.Nullable..., so nullable values can be emitted despite an active redaction rule. Consider evaluating both the original wrapper type and the underlying type.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
BenchmarksBenchmark execution time: 2026-05-14 18:14:30 Comparing candidate commit 5bd78c8 in PR branch Some scenarios are present only in baseline or only in candidate runs. If you didn't create or remove some scenarios in your branch, this maybe a sign of crashed benchmarks 💥💥💥 Scenarios present only in baseline:
Found 4 performance improvements and 4 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 47 metrics, 17 unstable metrics, 89 known flaky benchmarks, 37 flaky benchmarks without significant changes.
|
Execution-Time Benchmarks Report ⏱️Execution-time results for samples comparing This PR (8642) and master. ✅ No regressions detected - check the details below Full Metrics ComparisonFakeDbCommand
HttpMessageHandler
Comparison explanationExecution-time benchmarks measure the whole time it takes to execute a program, and are intended to measure the one-off costs. Cases where the execution time results for the PR are worse than latest master results are highlighted in **red**. The following thresholds were used for comparing the execution times:
Note that these results are based on a single point-in-time result for each branch. For full results, see the dashboard. Graphs show the p99 interval based on the mean and StdDev of the test run, as well as the mean value of the run (shown as a diamond below the graph). Duration chartsFakeDbCommand (.NET Framework 4.8)gantt
title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET Framework 4.8)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (75ms) : 70, 79
master - mean (73ms) : 70, 75
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (78ms) : 76, 80
master - mean (79ms) : 75, 83
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (1,108ms) : 1044, 1172
master - mean (1,104ms) : 1056, 1153
FakeDbCommand (.NET Core 3.1)gantt
title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET Core 3.1)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (114ms) : 110, 118
master - mean (113ms) : 109, 117
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (116ms) : 112, 120
master - mean (118ms) : 113, 124
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (788ms) : 764, 813
master - mean (787ms) : 759, 814
FakeDbCommand (.NET 6)gantt
title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET 6)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (105ms) : 98, 111
master - mean (102ms) : 98, 106
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (103ms) : 99, 106
master - mean (106ms) : 100, 111
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (943ms) : 905, 981
master - mean (946ms) : 907, 986
FakeDbCommand (.NET 8)gantt
title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET 8)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (100ms) : 95, 104
master - mean (99ms) : 95, 103
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (103ms) : 99, 108
master - mean (103ms) : 98, 108
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (824ms) : 784, 864
master - mean (822ms) : 788, 856
HttpMessageHandler (.NET Framework 4.8)gantt
title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET Framework 4.8)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (200ms) : 195, 205
master - mean (202ms) : 194, 210
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (204ms) : 199, 210
master - mean (206ms) : 198, 213
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (1,210ms) : 1165, 1255
master - mean (1,205ms) : 1159, 1251
HttpMessageHandler (.NET Core 3.1)gantt
title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET Core 3.1)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (287ms) : 281, 294
master - mean (288ms) : 281, 295
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (290ms) : 281, 298
master - mean (290ms) : 283, 296
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (961ms) : 944, 978
master - mean (967ms) : 941, 992
HttpMessageHandler (.NET 6)gantt
title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET 6)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (281ms) : 274, 287
master - mean (281ms) : 275, 287
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (281ms) : 276, 286
master - mean (280ms) : 275, 285
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (1,161ms) : 1117, 1205
master - mean (1,163ms) : 1117, 1208
HttpMessageHandler (.NET 8)gantt
title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET 8)
dateFormat x
axisFormat %Q
todayMarker off
section Baseline
This PR (8642) - mean (279ms) : 271, 287
master - mean (281ms) : 274, 289
section Bailout
This PR (8642) - mean (278ms) : 270, 287
master - mean (282ms) : 275, 288
section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
This PR (8642) - mean (1,039ms) : 992, 1086
master - mean (1,041ms) : 997, 1085
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Nullable<T>was added toIsSafeToCallToString, but type-redaction checks still used the original wrapper type, allowing configured redacted underlying types (e.g.,System.Guid) to be bypassed when serialized asGuid?.ToStringvalue types could be emitted without redaction.Description
Nullable<T>before checking/caching inRedaction.IsRedactedTypeso configured redacted underlying types apply to nullable wrappers as well (tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Debugger/Snapshots/Redaction.cs).IsRedactedType_WithConfiguredUnderlyingNullableType_Testto assertGuid?is redacted whenSystem.Guidis configured as redacted (tracer/test/Datadog.Trace.Tests/Debugger/RedactionTests.cs).ShouldRedacttheory to include aGuid?case and includeSystem.Guidin the test configuration to cover the end-to-end decision path.Testing
dotnet test tracer/test/Datadog.Trace.Tests/Datadog.Trace.Tests.csproj --filter "FullyQualifiedName~Datadog.Trace.Tests.Debugger.RedactionTests" --no-restore, and the modified redaction tests passed on supported TFMs in this environment.Codex Task