feat(server-utils): Add TypeSafe integration - #24703
Open
andreiborza wants to merge 6 commits into
Open
andreiborza wants to merge 6 commits into
andreiborza wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
andreiborza
changed the title
Contributor
size-limit report 📦
|
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.
❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 59126fd. Configure here.
andreiborza
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 25, 2026 12:48
andreiborza
requested review from
JPeer264,
chargome,
isaacs and
nicohrubec
and removed request for
a team
September 25, 2026 12:48
JPeer264
approved these changes
Sep 25, 2026
| baseURL: `http://localhost:${server.address().port}`, | ||
| retry: { maxRetries: 0 }, | ||
| }); | ||
| const client = Sentry.getClient().getIntegrationByName('TypeSafe') |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
l/m: This might be too much testing, but it'd be nice if we actually also check if this ternary will ever be true when instrumented automatically. Worst case scenario: our tests pass even though it's not auto instrumented (could maybe happen if Orchestrion is not adding the channel)
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch. The ternary would quietly fall back to the manual wrapper if the integration weren't registered. Split it into scenario.mjs (never wraps) and scenario-manual.mjs (always wraps), so the automatic test now fails if auto-instrumentation breaks. Fixed in f21c21c.
| [SEMANTIC_ATTRIBUTE_SENTRY_ORIGIN]: TYPESAFE_ORIGIN, | ||
| [GEN_AI_OPERATION_NAME]: 'evaluate', | ||
| [GEN_AI_PROVIDER_NAME]: TYPESAFE_PROVIDER_NAME, | ||
| ...(model ? { [GEN_AI_REQUEST_MODEL]: model } : {}), |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
l: following should be enough unless a model can be an empty string (then we could also do model || undefined or "unknown" (see #24703 (comment))
Suggested change
| ...(model ? { [GEN_AI_REQUEST_MODEL]: model } : {}), | |
| [GEN_AI_REQUEST_MODEL]: model, |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't think this is necessary tbh.
This branch has not been deployed
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
2 participants
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.
What
Calls to TypeSafe's Jev through
@typesafe-ai/sdk(TypeSafeClient.systemOne) now create agen_ai.evaluatespan with the same shape as the Vercel AI evaluate span.instrumentTypeSafeClient()does the same for runtimes without auto-instrumentation.Why
We want to instrument Jev.
Closes: #24693