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

Client-provided timestamps that are too far in the past are rewritten with the current timestamp; confusion ensues #6730

Open
tkaemming opened this issue Dec 8, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@tkaemming
Copy link
Contributor

Timestamps that are too far in the past (30 days) are discarded and rewritten as the current timestamp. This can lead to confusing effects when some clients that may legitimately send very old events (mobile SDKs with offline buffering, for example) have their timestamps rewritten.

This can lead to the incorrect conclusion that an issue that previously existed (especially ones that are not isolated to a specific version, such as a client/server incompatibility that was fixed on the server side, DNS routing issues, etc.) and was assumed to be or explicitly marked as resolved has mysteriously started to occur again in the present.

@tkaemming
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkaemming commented Dec 12, 2017

One approach here that might make sense (this came up in discussion with @mattrobenolt and @alex-hofsteede) is to stop rewriting old timestamps, set a hard cap at some point after which the event is rejected as invalid, and also allow the user to optionally define their own cap as an inbound filter if they'd like to be more restrictive

@vitaliy-ostapchuk93
Copy link

Any chance this can be disabled in the settings? We currently running a trial to switch to sentry and have to move the dumps we already got, which can be really confusing with the updated timestamps.

@BYK
Copy link
Member

BYK commented Oct 26, 2020

I think @tkaemming's cap idea is pretty good compared to rewriting as the current timestamp. How do we move forward with that solution? Who else should be involved in making this decision?

@liewegas
Copy link

liewegas commented Feb 9, 2021

We are also encountering this problem. Any chance of getting a fix or workaround?

@fpacifici
Copy link
Contributor

@untitaker Is Relay resetting the timestamp to the current timestamp during the normalization phase? Snuba is not doing it.

@untitaker
Copy link
Member

Yes, Relay is doing it as did the old Python store. What is the behavior we want? Right now there should be a clear error message at the top indicating that the timestamp is rewritten. It does not happen silently.

@getsantry
Copy link
Contributor

getsantry bot commented Dec 11, 2024

Routing to @getsentry/product-owners-ingestion-and-filtering for triage ⏲️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants